1951-11-20

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. McLure be substituted for that of Mr. Browne (St. John's West) on the special committee on railway legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Second annual report on activities under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1951.-Mr. McCubbin.


Mr. R. O. Campney (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, when Bill 21, respecting the Canadian forces, was in committee on Friday last the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) requested the production of certain correspondence with reference to offers on the part of certain organizations to provide auxiliary services for the troops in Korea and replies thereto. In accordance with that request I now wish to table the correspondence referred to.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY  DEEP WATERWAY BETWEEN MONTREAL AND LAKE ERIE

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minisier of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient, for the purpose of providing a deep waterway between Montreal and lake Erie, to create a corporation to be called "The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority" with power, inter alia, to expropriate; to construct, maintain and operate all necessary works; to borrow amounts not exceeding three hundred million dollars; to establish tariffs of tolls and to employ such officers and employees as may be required for the purposes of the authority.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, of which I believe he has received notice. This question has been directed to him in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).
When may some interim payment be expected to relieve the truly desperate plight of some of those Canadians who suffered as a result of Japanese action during the last war? In that respect I would point out that there are large assets available which give assurance of a return to the government, in respect of any such payment which may be made. There are many people who have waited for six years, without any payment having been made. Some of them to my knowledge, and I am sure to the knowledge of the government, are really in a desperate position today.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): It is quite true that some of those who have submitted claims are in a position that would make us very glad if interim payments can be made. Some weeks ago the matter was referred to Mr. Justice Ilsley, the commissioner inquiring into the matter of war claims that have been submitted, and a most interesting and lengthy report was received from him the other day. Copies of this report have been submitted to members of council for their individual consideration, but we have not yet had an opportunity of co-ordinating our views in respect to it.
Mr. Justice Ilsley points out that there are some rather serious risks involved in making interim payments, in that prejudice might be caused to other possible claimants. Some of the cases which are the most sympathetic would appear to be borderline in character. The question arises as to whether the claims of all those having Canadian nationality shall be recognized or whether there shall be

Inquiries of the Ministry a more restricted determination of those whose claims will be recognized. There are at least two of those which would appear to be worthy of the most sympathy which would involve a wide definition of Canadians entitled to claims.
I hope that the number of claims that will have to be considered for interim payment will not be great and that the risk to the treasury, even though ultimately they were not included in the classes recognized, will not involve a substantial sum. It is a risk that might be taken because of the distress of those who are urging such claims. The matter is receiving constant attention and I intend to ask my colleagues at the earliest possible opportunity for their views after they have had the opportunity to consider the pros and cons set out in the report received from Mr. Justice Ilsley.
There will be more information as to the exact factual situation available when question No. 8 on the order paper is answered.
I hope that that may be answered, if not tomorrow at least not later than Monday next. We are making a compilation of the information requested by the question which will pretty well cover the general factual situation. I trust that we may be able to recommend that whatever risks are involved in dealing sympathetically with these claims for interim payment may be taken.


George Alexander Drew: I appreciate the difficulties
which the Prime Minister has pointed out in regard to differentiation between the different types of claims. Without extending the discussion too much I would nevertheless urge that if possible immediate consideration be given to claims such as those by widows of husbands who died from starvation or ill treatment and who themselves have little or no earning power today and are thus in a position of great hardship. I need hardly point out that we are only a month away from Christmas and into the winter season and great encouragement would be given to a number of people who are in most difficult positions if they had some assurance that their cases, as distinguished from claims by large companies in respect to the sinking of ships and things of that kind, would be dealt with in the way of some interim allowance that would at least take care of their immediate requirements.


Mr. St. Laurent:: The hon. member said that the war has been over for some six years, but all hon. members appreciate that we could not deal with these problems until the peace treaty was signed. In anticipation of the signing of the peace treaty this advisory commission on war claims was set up. It is not intended to adjudicate at the

moment on the individual claims but only as to the priority that should be given to claims for personal injury or for the death of heads of families and so forth over property claims, but the whole matter will be dealt with just as expeditiously as possible. We do appreciate that there has been considerable delay in getting the treaty signed and that there should now be as little delay as possible in implementing what has become possible under the treaty.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, of which I have given him notice. Will the minister have an immediate investigation made under the Combines Investigation Act as to, first, whether there was collusion, understanding or agreement among firms engaged in the packing industry in bringing about the drastic reduction of 25 per cent in hog prices between July and October of this year? And, second, was there collusion, understanding or agreement among these firms preventing or delaying those declines being reflected in lower prices to the consumer?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. When I received that notice I discussed the matter referred to in his question with the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act. The commissioner informed me that he had already had this matter under consideration and although he had so far obtained no evidence of collusion or illegal activities, he was seeking further information. If the hon member, or if any hon. member for that matter, knows of any facts that might be of assistance to the commissioner, I hope he will place them before the commissioner.
If the preliminary inquiries now being made indicate that a formal investigation is warranted, the commissioner has ample powers under the act to undertake that inquiry and would do so in the ordinary course of events without necessarily having any direction from myself as minister.


Percy Ellis Wright: I have a letter here setting out certain facts-


An hon. Member:: Give it to the commissioner.


Percy Ellis Wright: -and asking for an investigation on five points. I will send it to the minister. The five points I wish to have investigated are, first-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to send the letter to the commissioner or to the Minister of Justice.



TEXTILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-L'Islei):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, of which I have sent him notice. It has been alleged that the considerable reduction in the production of textiles and nylon goods-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs would set a good example to the house by asking his questions without introductory comments.


Jean Lesage: I thank you for your advice, Mr. Speaker, and I shall follow it. I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue whether the allegations to the effect that there has been some dumping of textiles and nylon goods in Canada are true. If so, has anything been done to prevent such dumping in the future?


An hon. Member:: Put it on the order paper.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Gingues), the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin), and the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Cloutier) and others have also spoken to me respecting this matter. From an examination of invoices in the department no evidence has been disclosed up to the present time that imported goods are being offered at prices lower than the fair market value thereof in the United States at the time of shipment. Special instructions have been issued to collectors at some of the larger ports to have the imported goods carefully appraised and the entries taken subject to amendment pending investigation.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Is the same attention being paid to the importation at unfair prices of oils to manufacture margarine?


James Joseph McCann: The answer to that question, is that the same attention is given to all goods which come into this country.



INQUIRY AS TO DUTY-FREE ADMISSION OF COMMERCIAL DRIERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry National Revenue or, if he is the wrong one, to the appropriate minister. In view of the unusual quantities of high moisture grain which exist in western Canada this year-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: -has the government considered permitting the temporary entry of commercial grain driers into this country duty free and allowing the purchasers of such equipment some kind of accelerated depreciation?


James Joseph McCann: I thank the hon. member for having given notice of his question. This is a matter which has been brought to my attention within the last few days by other western members. 1 can only say at the present time that it is being given consideration, and within the next twenty-four or forty-eight hours I will make a more definite statement.



INQUIRY AS TO RAISING OF FLOOR PRICE TO PARITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture or his parliamentary assistant. Owing to the decreased production of eggs, has any consideration been given to raising the floor price of eggs to parity under the minister's suggested base period, 1943 to 1945?


Mr. Robert McCubbin (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture):: All these questions are given consideration and any announcement will be made at the proper time.


William Scottie Bryce: I asked the parliamentary assistant a straight question and I want a straight answer.


Robert McCubbin: The hon. member for Selkirk can rest assured that this government at all times takes the request of the farmer and the producer into consideration.


Mr. Ferguson:: He asked a question.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert McCubbin: On
Friday last the hon. member for Lethbridge asked that consideration be given to the advisability of making provision through the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to grant assistance to farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan

Canadian Forces Act
at present in distress because of the abnormally wet season of 1951. In reply may I say that under the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act assistance may be granted only if the conditions found upon inspection are such as to bring the area within the terms of the act.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Is the
parliamentary assistant aware of the fact that farmers all through Saskatchewan and Alberta have been paying one per cent of their income from sales every year from 1939 up to the present time and that the great percentage of those now in distress have never had five cents in return as consideration for that contribution? Second, at what time does the department determine whether or not the production of grain involved is below 8 bushels: in the year when the grain is grown or some time far in the future?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: It is a question.


Robert McCubbin: The government at all
times takes these things into consideration, and the hon. member can rest assured that the farmers of western Canada will always be looked after.


John Horne Blackmore: That is not an answer at all. I asked the parliamentary assistant two specific questions and they have not been answered.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Is that the reason this
government has given so much consideration to farmer Thomson?


George Alexander Cruickshank: We will show you on election day.



CANADIAN FORCES ACT TO PROVIDE FOR COMPENSATION, PENSIONS, ETC. TO MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES AND ALLIED SERVICES

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of National Defence) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 21, respecting the Canadian forces.


Mr. Green:: Is the parliamentary assistant making any further statement with regard to welfare services, as promised the other day?


Ralph Osborne Campney: did not promise to make any further statement with respect to departmental policy in regard to welfare services. I did say that I would endeavour to produce and table certain correspondence, which I have done. In reviewing the matter, I find that on four different occasions the minister has dealt
with this subject fully in this house. In all fairness I must say that I think he has stated very clearly the government's policy up to the present time and the reasons therefor. I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to the statements that he has already made in that connection.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, when the bill was under consideration in committee on November 16 I asked the parliamentary assistant whether there had been any change in the policy with regard to welfare services from that which was followed during the second world war. That policy was of course that certain national organizations were invited to help provide such services. I refer to the Canadian Legion, the Y.M.C.A., the Knights of Columbus and the Salvation Army. If the parliamentary assistant will turn to page 1095 of Hansard he will find that I asked him to check up with the Department of National Defence to see whether there had been a change of policy as a result of which these organizations would not be permitted to participate in Korea or for the benefit of the troops who have gone to Europe. As reported on the following page the parliamentary assistant said that he would endeavour to find out whether there had been a change in government policy. Today he has made no statement whatever with respect to that particular phase of the matter. I suggest to him and to the house that this question is of great importance.
During the course of earlier debates we referred to information that had been received from men in Korea and also the statement made by the Primate of the Anglican Church. Today we find in this morning's Globe and Mail a report of an interview with one of the men, who has just returned from Korea. After dealing with the very severe weather conditions they met there, this returned veteran said:
Even worse than the weather conditions ... is the lack of entertainment facilities available for Canadian troops. "Why wasn't the Sally Ann there," he asked.
He adds:
"We could always find them in the last show, but now there is nobody."
Informed that the auxiliary services, such as the Y.M.C.A., the Salvation Army and the Legion, were not allowed to take their workers to Korea . . .
I will not quote the man's name, but it is in the dispatch. I continue:
. . . could only say: "Somebody must be out of his mind."

This returning veteran explained that during the rest periods allowed the troops little entertainment could be found. The article goes on:
The men were confined to camp, he said, because the authorities feared they might be poisoned with water or liquor. They could only sit and read in the camps.
"We had only two sports days all the time I was out there," he added, "and there was practically no sports equipment."
He also had a strong complaint about the lack of Canadian cigarettes. He said the troops could obtain British, Australian or U.S. brands, but Canadian makes were not available.
That is evidence from a man who has just come back from Korea and was interviewed in Toronto yesterday, and it bears out everything that has been said in this house. I do repeat the recommendation made the other day, which was that the government appoint an investigating committee made up of men who are not in the Department of National Defence. There are other men in other departments of the government who are thoroughly experienced in welfare work because of what they did during the last war. There are also men available from these great national agencies to which I referred earlier in my remarks. I do suggest that without any further delay a committee be set up and flown over to Korea where they can find out the situation and can make recommendations to the government upon returning so that action can be taken before the winter is over.
This promises to be a very grim winter in Korea for the Canadians who are there. It looks as though there will be very severe fighting, and these men are certainly undergoing hardships just as great as any young Canadians have ever undergone in the past. I am confident that every hon. member would like to see this situation cleared up without any further delay. I hope that the parliamentary assistant will be able to get action along these lines from the Department of National Defence right away.
There is one other matter which we find in the press today concerning the troops in Korea, and this has to do with the Minister of National Revenue. We find a report headed: "Gifts from Korea Troops Subject to Customs Duty". The article goes on to state that any presents that men send back from Korea to relatives in Canada are subject to duty unless under the value of $5. That seems to be a provision which could very well be waived for these particular men and their loved ones. Apparently during the last war such a provision was waived. There was an order in council passed, or some other action taken, which enabled the Canadians serving with the forces abroad to send back gifts to their people free of duty, and I do not see why a similar provision should not be made at this
Canadian Forces Act
time covering the men in the forces in Korea and also those on duty in Europe. The Minister of National Revenue will know. There may be some reason why that cannot be done, but on the face of it one would think that this favoured treatment should be extended to the men who are overseas.


Percy Ellis Wright: When this bill was in committee the other day the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) asked the parliamentary assistant certain questions about people ' who have been brought into the civil service from the permanent forces under an amendment to this act. Men who served in the first and second wars who returned to Canada but did not enter the civil service immediately but later took work in the civil service were required to pay 12 per cent of their initial salary in the civil service into a superannuation fund. Under the amendments to this act, if I understand them correctly, certain personnel who are coming into the civil service today from the permanent forces are required to pay only 6 per cent of their initial salary in the civil service.
In his explanation the other day to the hon. member for Saskatoon, the parliamentary assistant stated that this 6 per cent clause applied only to personnel who had been contributing into the permanent service pension act funds, and did not apply to others coming into the civil service who may have in some past period paid but who had discontinued their payments to the permanent service pension fund. I understand that that is not the case; that actually under this amendment personnel are being brought into the civil service from the Department of National Defence or from civil life through the Department of National Defence who are allowed to pay 6 per cent of their initial salary into a superannuation fund and yet they may not have paid the 6 per cent for a former period which they may have served in the permanent forces. I should like to know whether that is so or not, or whether all people coming into the service have been treated on the same basis. I understand that that is not so; that certain selected personnel-a small number- are getting preferred treatment under the new provisions set out in this bill.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: In
connection with the matter dealt with by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), it may be of interest to place on the record a summary of the correspondence that has passed between the various groups concerned with providing auxiliary services and the Department of National Defence, beginning back in August, 1950. Today the parliamentary assistant very properly and expeditiously tabled the record. It reveals a situation

Canadian Forces Act
that I think more than ever calls for an explanation on the part of the government as to the reason why the Department of National Defence has seen fit to deny the auxiliary groups giving the benefit of their services in Korea. The record shows that on August 2, 1950, the general secretary of the Canadian Legion wrote to the Minister of National Defence, on instructions of the dominion president-using the words in the letter of that date-to
. . . offer the services of the Canadian Legion to be used in any way that you feel the organization might be helpful in the Korean cause.
As you know, we have kept alive the charters of both the Canadian Legion War Services and the Canadian Legion Educational Services and the boards of directors of both organizations have held fairly regular meetings even since the activities pf both organizations were curtailed as a result of the cessation of hostilities of 1945.
If the Canadian Legion proper or either or both of the subsidiary organizations can be of any assistance to your department, either now or in the immediate future, we would be glad if you would advise us.
That letter was signed by T. D. Anderson, general secretary. The reply of the secretary to the minister reads in part:
Mr. Claxton has asked me to express his deep appreciation of your offer and to assure you that if your organization can be of service in any way, you will be notified immediately.
There is nothing further on the record until October 30, 1951. Following what appeared in in the press there is a further letter from the general secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). It is dated October 30, 1951, and reads as follows:
We have noted, with some concern, reports which have appeared from time to time in the press reference the welfare of our troops now serving in Korea.
You will recall that some time ago the Legion offered its services in whatever capacity they might be used in support of the part Canada is playing in the Korean war. Also you are aware that we have for some time been supplying reading material and stationery to the troops in Korea and are now prepared to extend this service to members of the 27th brigade, who we understand will shortly be going to Europe.
Letters we are receiving from members of the forces in Korea and items appearing in the various newspapers indicate that earnest consideration should now be given to the possibility of providing more adequate welfare facilities to the troops.
Our dominion executive council will meet here on November 8-9-10 next and the dominion president will arrive in Ottawa on the morning of the 5th of November. The dominion president together with representatives of both Canadian Legion educational services and Canadian Legion war services would like, if possible, to see you at that time . . .
The rest of the letter is immaterial. The Minister of National Defence replied on November 1 as follows:
Dear Mr. Anderson: -
I am leaving out the introductory words.
Thank you for your letter of October 30 about welfare and recreational services in Korea.

In this connection I enclose a copy of a statement made in the house last Monday.
I would emphasize that-
He emphasizes five points, and they are as follows:
1.	None of the countries operating in the theatre employ agencies outside the services.
2.	Conditions are utterly different from those that obtained in western Europe in the first or second world wars.
3.	We have had no complaints or suggestions for additional services from the brigade commander, whose record shows that he would be the first to see that everything possible was done for the troops under his command.
4.	The theatre has been repeatedly visited by numbers of officers, including Brigadier Fleury, Brigadier Bernatchez, Brigadier Brennan and many others. They report that everything possible is being done.
5.	Because of the conditions in Korea, we are providing for service on a rotational basis in so far as the military situation permits. If you believe that additional steps can and should be taken, I would be only too glad to receive suggestions. I believe what we want more than anything else is for the people in Canada by their letters to keep in touch with the men who are serving us abroad.
He goes on to say that they will provide for discussion with the council of the Legion. That, sir, indicates why, for a period of approximately fourteen months, the Canadian Legion's offer of service has not received the consideration one would have expected it would receive from the minister. For a period of fourteen months apparently there was no correspondence other than the offer and the reply of the minister.
Turning to the Knights of Columbus, they made their offer of service on August 2, 1950, in a letter signed by the president, Canadian Army Huts, Knights of Columbus, and by the secretary of the same organization. The letter is from Montreal, and reads as follows:
As you are aware, the Knights of Columbus Canadian Army Huts was one of the four national organizations who were recognized by the government of Canada to provide auxiliary services for the Canadian armed forces . . .
Then it goes on to say:
. . . we wish to place ourselves on record that if the occasion arises, we feel that we should be recognized as we were in world war II.
Let me assure you that if such occasion arises, the Knights of Columbus Canadian Army Huts, representing the Catholic population of Canada, as loyal Canadian citizens, will be only too anxious to serve the armed forces of Canada to the best of our ability.
They, too, received a reply from the minister the pertinent part of which reads:
I do appreciate your courtesy in sending me this information and it is a source of gratification to know that we may call upon you if the need arises.
Then, the Y.M.C.A. made its offer on November 10, 1950, through the national council

of the Young Men's Christian Associations of Canada. Paragraph 2 of the letters reads:
At a meeting of our national governing body, held recently, it was decided to advise the government that the Y.M.C.A. is ready to use the resources of its organization to provide service to those who enlist in these armed forces. Our action is based on experience in serving Canadian personnel in the armed forces in the Boer war and two world wars
In the event that this offer warrants your consideration, we would be glad to have a deputation wait upon you or the Minister of National Defence to discuss its implementation.
That letter is signed by the president of the organization, and directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) of Canada. He replied on November 30, 1950, and stated in part:
The armed forces greatly appreciate this offer, but the situation with regard to Canadian troops in Korea is continually changing and it is difficult at the present stage to establish the requirements for auxiliary services. We would appreciate it, therefore, if the matter could be deferred for the moment until the situation is clarified.
The Salvation Army made its offer on July 16, 1951. The letter sets out in detail that its trained personnel is available and states:
Secondly, we have always specialized in welfare service. Whether this be in homeland or base camps, in the forward areas, or in the cities and towns where men of the forces spend their periods of leave, we are able and willing to provide facilities where such are desired.
As a particular case in point, it has recently been brought to our notice that there are at times many men on leave in Edmonton, and the suggestion has been made that we might provide a canteen and recreation centre . . .
That letter is signed by William R. Dal-ziel, commissioner. He received a reply dated July 30, 1951, which reads in part:
On my return to the office I have your letter of July 16 and I most sincerely appreciate the offer of service of the Salvation Army for the spiritual and physical well-being of the men and women of our forces.
In regard to the matter of establishing canteens and recreation centres, this question is constantly under review as a necessary service in the important work of maintaining good morale in the forces. Up to the present time we have been able to provide these facilities within our own resources, but I can assure you that if the situation changes to the extent that outside assistance is required, your offer on behalf of the Salvation Army will be given every consideration.
This correspondence reveals the offers of assistance that were made by these several organizations. As yet no one representing the government has made any clear-cut answer about the voluntary offers of service made by these four great organizations. They have been refused, or at least have not been given favourable attention. I feel, and I am more reinforced than ever in my opinion by the recent correspondence I have received since this debate first started, that men and women in every part of our country are asking the government to allow these organizations, willing as they are, to accept the
Canadian Forces Act
responsibility for welfare services. They are qualified to discharge those responsibilities and most of the armed forces are desirous of the facilities of these organizations. These responsibilities cannot be discharged in the same manner by any organization of the armed forces themselves. These groups should be given the opportunity of providing the material and spiritual benefits that otherwise may not be as readily procurable for the men in the armed forces.
I join with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in once more repeating an appeal that when great organizations such as these, whose record of service over the years has been one of credit and distinction, are prepared, regardless of any difficulties that may exist in Korea, to provide their services at their expense, they should not be denied the opportunity. Any arguments that were advanced with respect to conditions in Korea certainly have no application to the 27th brigade now en route to Europe. I suggest once more, with all the force at my command, that those serving in Europe should have immediately available to them the services which each and every one of these organizations is qualified and willing to give.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to add some further words in regard to the questions I originally asked concerning this important matter. When I was first prompted to bring before the house the matter of welfare services for our troops, particularly those serving in Korea, it was because of certain reports I had read in various journals published in Canada and also because of certain intimations that had reached me from men who had experience in that particular theatre of war. The discussion has been continuing around this problem and I feel that the case has been adequately presented to the members of the house. I had not previously had the opportunity to learn of the correspondence that has just been placed on the record by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker); but that correspondence indicates more and more that there is a real problem arising out of the matter of providing adequate welfare and entertainment services for our troops.
I do not think I need labour the point that the Canadian forces are largely a civilian army made up of civilian soldiers, and that remark applies to the other branches of the services as well. It seems to me rather remarkable that the overwhelming support pledged by the four organizations experienced in this field of welfare for the troops has in each instance been denied by the government. Because of their experience and because of

Canadian Forces Act
their established reputation in world war I and world war II, I feel that they have a major role to play not only in meeting the immediate requirements of the men in the field but also in maintaining for these civilian soldiers liaison between the war front and the home front.
All of us who have had any experience in service life know that the atmosphere created while on military duty is quite contrary to many of the best values that have become a part of our basic outlook on life as a result of our experience in civilian society. I feel that the presence of personnel with no direct military connections and who are, as a matter of fact, somewhat detached from the necessary discipline and regimentation that is involved in all branches of the service can play a great role in maintaining the contact of the civilian soldier, the civilian airman or even the civilian naval man if you will, with the life back home from which he is temporarily separated.
This matter of welfare services is not merely a matter of providing games, cigarettes, moving pictures, tiddlywinks or any of the other recreative pursuits that we might mention. In answer to my first question that was placed on the order paper, those were largely the facilities that were given by the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). When I asked what welfare and entertainment had been provided for the Canadian troops serving in Korea, emphasis was laid by the minister on sports, motion pictures, tape recordings, reading material, free cigarettes, et cetera. Those are necessary and important, but I do not feel that the real need is being met by merely providing those impersonal or, I might say, materialistic things. I feel that the method in which those games and other activities are carried out is exceedingly important. I feel that the personnel behind the program is significant. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) has repeatedly brought that point before the house by endeavouring to indicate that men who are trained for the specific task of warfare are not necessarily qualified to carry on a much different activity, namely the bringing of welfare assistance and entertainment, and even spiritual assistance, to the men serving in the front lines.
This brings me to another closely related problem that has been discussed in the house from time to time, that of assistance to families of service personnel actively engaged in the field. I had placed on the order paper questions in this regard and I received replies which were adequate enough in themselves

but which were not quite satisfactory. Perhaps I should put this in the form of a question now to the responsible minister. As to the administration of the army benevolent fund, in a reply to a question submitted I am informed that all members of the armed forces and the families of members of the armed forces actively engaged in the defence of Canada at the present time come under the benefits of the benevolent fund-whether it be the navy benevolent fund, the air force benevolent fund or the army benevolent fund-with the exception of new enlistees; that is, men who had no previous service in world war II. In view of certain information I have received from the families of men serving overseas, those who are left at home to face additional responsibilities and emergencies, such as sickness, I would make the suggestion that an arrangement be made whereby funds in the army benevolent fund might be made available to the dependents of new enlistees who have not had previous military experience in world war II. This is closely related to the suggestions put forward from this side of the house with respect to the acceptance of the generous offers of the four organizations who have offered their services to do auxiliary work with Canadian forces. Those organizations, because of the high qualifications of their personnel in connection with welfare, entertainment and spiritual guidance, could serve as an excellent liaison between the families on the home front and the men serving in the front lines.
I want to renew the questions I have already placed on the book, and ask again whether any additional welfare services are to be set up and, if so, what are the particulars thereof? The need has been demonstrated. It has been further demonstrated that welfare organizations qualified to meet the need have offered their services early in the present conflict. All that now awaits is some declaration of policy concerning these offers so generously made.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join in
what has been said about the need for special facilities arranged by Canadians themselves for the non-military activities of Canadians in Korea, Europe, or anywhere else they may be outside of Canada. I do this particularly because I raised the subject on May 31, in the first session this year. I should like to refer back to what was said at that time, because it has some bearing on the extent to which members of the House of Commons should ask for some definite and unmistakable assurance at this time that something is going to be done.

In response to the questions I asked on May 31, as to the arrangements that were made for Canadian troops in Korea, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) in his reply discussed various aspects of the problem and, as reported at page 3568 of Hansard, had this to say:
I am glad of the opportunity extended by the leader of the opposition to say something about this matter. In the first place, it may be pointed out that the Canadian brigade group now forms a part of the first United Nations-commonwealth-division. The supplies for this group are furnished, like those for the other commonwealth forces, from United States sources. It would not be economical for us to have a separate supply line.
Then, later in the same remarks, the minister said this:
We are endeavouring to make arrangements whereby cigarettes, in addition to the supplies of other peculiarly Canadian products desired by the troops, will be immediately available out of stores arranged with the United1 Kingdom or United States authorities. If necessary, we shall set up our special Canadian agencies.
That was a positive assurance on May 31 that unless facilities could be provided through United Kingdom or United States authorities to give Canadians the things they desired which were particularly Canadian, the government if necessary-and I quote the words of the minister-would "set up our special Canadian agencies". This is now November, and those agencies have not been set up, nor have the facilities been arranged as promised at that time.
Already reference has been made to statements reported in the press by those returning from Korea. I have before me yesterday's issue of the Toronto Telegram in which interviews with veterans returning from Korea are reported. One of those veterans referred to the fact that they could not get Canadian cigarettes. He was speaking about other things as well, of course, and said that last spring a group of them had written to me about this subject, enclosing some of the cigarettes they were receiving. He indicated that I had written back to them about this, and that as yet nothing had happened to change the situation.
I want to point out that it was in response to the communications I received at that time that I raised this point on May 31 in the house. There are a number of veterans in the house who saw service in the first world war. Those who did will recall the quality, or the lack of quality, of the cigarettes we received for some time during that war. They were known as gaspers-and that was a very complimentary name, I may say.
I have here two packages I received from Korea of the cigarettes being issued over there. I would not have mentioned the name
Canadian Forces Act
of the make, had it not been for the fact that it has been reported by the veteran himself who made reference to them. For that reason therefore I do not think it is necessary to continue the anonymity of the cigarettes-although I did at the time I raised the question. These are Capstans, made in Australia, and in every respect they bear a strange family resemblance to those packages of cigarettes that some of us got in the first world war. If there was any tobacco in them, then it certainly was so carefully disguised that none of us could have told the difference if indeed it had been something entirely different.
I do wish that any member who has memories of those other cigarettes could have a smell of these I now hold in my hand. Personally, I would not suggest that anyone should smoke them. But they are the cigarettes that are still being supplied to our troops in Korea.
One of the veterans interviewed by the Toronto Telegram spoke about the difficulty of getting any entertainment while they were on leave. This raises a question that goes far beyond the mere supplying of adequate cigarettes, or otherwise. We have been told that the morale of our troops in Korea is excellent. I am sure, from all reports, that that is so; we would not expect it to be otherwise. However, Canadians should not be placed in a position where they are called upon to look to the official organizations of other countries to receive the assurance that the men in the line are being remembered.
I have no doubt that that is what the Most Rev. W. F. Barfoot, the Primate of the Church of England, had in mind on his return from Korea, as reported in the Edmonton Journal of November 14, when he said that Canadians must guard against the tendency to regard the troops in Korea as a forgotten army. Certainly it is not a forgotten army. What the Most Rev. W. F. Barfoot undoubtedly was suggesting was that Canadian troops in Korea may think that they are a forgotten army so far as Canadians are concerned.
On May 31 the Minister of National Defence said that it would not be economical for us to have a separate supply line. Surely there must be some way in which these Canadian organizations can go to Korea. If in the opinion of the Minister of National Defence the Canadian troops are too small in number to justify a complete organization of that nature, then I feel sure that these organizations which have indicated their willingness to perform these services will be ready to perform them for the troops of other nations which have no such services available today. I feel sure that the people of Canada would

Canadian Forces Act
be glad to know that the Canadian Legion, the Y.M.C.A., the Knights of Columbus, the Salvation Army and other organizations of that kind were giving assistance, with the support of the people of Canada, not only to Canadian troops but to the troops of other nations as well.
I suggest that there is a particular reason why every step should be taken to supply Canadians with these things from Canada, the things that veterans of the last war came to expect as a matter of course. If Canadians serving outside of Canada come to look to the United States, the United Kingdom or to any other source as a place from which they can receive those things which provide comfort and entertainment, they will have, perhaps unconsciously, some feeling of dependence upon a nation other than the nation which should be the first to emphasize that we share the full burden of their maintenance overseas.
I do not think it is a good thing from the Canadian point of view to have Canadians overseas see men from the United States, the United Kingdom or any other country able to get the things they want from their own countries while Canadians are not able to have those things that they wish from Canada itself.
There is one other thing that should be emphasized at this time. I emphasize it in the light of the unqualified undertaking that was given on May 31 that if arrangements could not be made to provide these things through the United Kingdom or the United States authorities the Canadian government would set up its own special agencies if that were necessary. Christmas is now just over a month away and if there is one particular season of the year-every veteran knows this-when young men away from home have a great longing for things from home, it is at that particular time.
In addition to having positive assurance today that these things will be carried out on this occasion, we should be informed in most definite and clear terms as to just what the Canadian government is planning to do in order to make it clear to Canadians in Korea, Europe or anywhere else outside of Canada that the people of Canada through the government of Canada are remembering them at this Christmas season, which means so much to every one of us.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my voice to that of the hon. members who have already spoken on this question. This is certainly not important from a financial point of view, but it is most important from the point of view of the morale and morals, if you like, of our

troops in Korea. I did not hear all the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) but I certainly agree with his concluding remarks, not necessarily what he said about Christmas but what he said about the desirability of Canadian troops not seeing other troops enjoying certain small amenities that they themselves cannot get. The government should take this matter under advisement, not merely to consider it but to do something about it at once and accept the assistance offered by the various organizations that are so anxious to help.
I have had no actual military experience, but I have read about what happened in the various wars we have participated in. I do not believe there has been any war where the conditions for the troops have been as bad as they are in Korea in the present conflict. We cannot complain if certain things happen about which we may feel ashamed if we do not do our part to provide entertainment for the troops when they are not engaged in actual warfare. I cannot think of anything that would be more injurious to a person, both mentally and physically, if after an arduous task has been completed than to have nothing to occupy his time or entertain and satisfy his mind.
I think the members of the various groups who have spoken have been most restrained in their remarks. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that he impress upon his superior the feeling of the house with respect to this question. I am sure that those on his side of the house have the same feeling in the matter.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel I can add very much to what has been said already regarding this very important matter affecting our soldiers in Korea. It seems to me that when we have these different organizations, which proved themselves so useful in the first and second world wars, we should certainly make some use of them. If we were building up something new and taking organizations without experience, that might be a different matter, and there might be some reason for hesitation; but here we have four fine organizations which in two wars have catered to our soldiers and have brought great comfort not only to them but I am sure to their people at home.
I had some experience myself in the first and second world wars, and I know the great value of the services of the Y.M.C.A., the Salvation Army, the Knights of Columbus and the Legion to the men. I understood the parliamentary assistant to say there was some idea of using officers in the units in place of these services, that officers were to be trained to do this work. I think the

experience of most officers in the last war and in the first war was that if you took an officer out of your unit and gave him a special job to do you usually selected an officer who was not the best in your unit. As a matter of fact you usually took some officer who was the poorest qualified in the unit and was not much good for anything else. I think everyone will bear me out in that statement. It would be very unfair to the men to place their entertainment in the hands of an inferior officer of the unit. I also think the choosing of such an officer would cause considerable difficulty in the unit. I feel that the department is making a great mistake in not utilizing the services of these four splendid organizations.
From reading press reports and so on we realize that the providing of entertainment in Korea would be more difficult than it was in France in the first war and in the other theatres of war during the second war, but .n my opinion the greater the difficulty the greater the challenge to the department and to these organizations. We have read about these men spending most of their time in the bleak hill region of Korea. When they come out for a few days' rest it is to some destroyed Korean village where there are no buildings for entertainment purposes and no entertainment of any kind. I say that is a challenge to the defence department, and it would be a challenge to these organizations, if they were sent there, to see that these men receive entertainment under these most trying conditions.
I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant if there have not been requests for the services of these organizations from the senior officers serving in the Canadian forces in Korea. I would be very much surprised if there had not.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: I should like to say a word about the lack of auxiliary services in Korea. For many months we have been reading stories in the press to the effect that the Legion, the Knights of Columbus, the Salvation Army, the Y.M.C.A. and other auxiliary services have made voluntary offers to the Department of National Defence. As has been pointed out, we know what splendid service they rendered in the first two world wars. It may be that conditions are somewhat different in Korea. The parliamentary assistant has repeatedly referred to the terrain and the different situation there. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker) read into the record this afternoon copies of the correspondence containing these
Canadian Forces Act
voluntary offers from the various organizations and the replies of the minister. The minister's reasons certainly did not impress me very much.
As was pointed out by my leader this afternoon, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), in answer to a question put by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) on May 31, said that if the services provided by the United States, Great Britain and others were not satisfactory Canada would be willing to provide them. However, nothing has been done. Canadian personnel have been returning from Korea within the last few days and they have borne out to quite an extent the press reports and the present dissatisfaction of many members of the forces there because of lack of provision for their material and spiritual welfare.
Our Korean force is made up of young civilians who are going through very difficult and trying times, and we are now to have an army of occupation in Europe. I think it is most essential that these voluntary offers should be accepted not only with respect to Korea but for the benefit of the 27th brigade in Europe. I cannot say just how much it means to the moral uplift of these chaps, who find it very lonely. As my leader pointed out, Christmas is approaching and these young people are away from their loved ones. They are undergoing trying and difficult conditions. The provision of these auxiliary services by those who have been trained to do this kind of work can do a great deal to assist in making it easier for our troops who are in strange lands and doing a great job on our behalf.
I have found it difficult to follow the reasoning of the Minister of National Defence whenever we have discussed these offers in the house. I am sure it is the wish of the civilian population that these voluntary offers of service be taken advantage of, and if the parliamentary assistant cannot impress that upon the minister and the department, then I think there is a lot of merit in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) this afternoon that an independent committee should be appointed to survey the situation and make a report. It should be a committee wholly apart from the Department of National Defence, one which would make a truly independent report to the government on this situation and whether it would be feasible to accept the voluntary offers so generously made by organizations that have proven their worth so well in two great world wars. I think it is most important that something of this sort should be done to preserve and develop the morale of these men who are doing so

Canadian Forces Act
much for us now under very adverse conditions. I wish to add my voice to this appeal.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 21, an act respecting the Canadian forces, is a very important measure and will have a great influence on the future of the services. It has not very much to do with the question we are discussing at the present time because the bill makes no provision whatsoever for recreational facilities. This subject is not new to the Department of National Defence because I brought the matter to their attention last June and was assured that I had been wrongly informed. I know I was not wrongly informed because I know the source of my information is 100 per cent reliable. From last June to the present time approximately five and one-half months have elapsed, but in the meantime the Department of National Defence should have done something about it
There is no reason in the world why the Department of National Defence could not have had accurate reports from that section of the world. They have numerous reliable personnel there to get reports from. To try to influence the country by sending clergymen of different denominations to the Korean front not to bring back a report to the House of Commons and the Department of National Defence, but to make public statements in the press as to what they saw and did not see there, was not a good way to handle the matter. It has not settled anything, and that is very well demonstrated by the discussion in the house this afternoon. The problem is still there.
I am disappointed with the bill in that it does not recognize that as a very important part of our national defence services in so far as the troops in combat service are concerned. You are going to have to face up to that question again with the 27th brigade in Europe. If we are going to take young men, seventeen, eighteen and nineteen years of age, from their homes, put them in uniform and have them live under the conditions that they are living under in Korea while in combat, and then when they come out of the lines provide their own means of recreation, you are going to get the kind of repercussions we have had in the press in the last month or two to the effect that Canadian service personnel are behaving badly. It is human nature; it is only what you can expect. It is not half as bad as I would expect, having lived a little of that kind of life myself but never having been caught.
If I were the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence and this were brought to my department I would say: "Who knows the most about the problem? The

people who handled it in the last war, the Legion war services." That organization could he assembled on very short notice. It was not
very costly to the country. They could put the organization in the field very quickly to provide the kind of recreational facilities that are needed. That service is designed to give advice. You will find that young men, either in Europe in the 27th brigade or in the Korean forces, want someone to whom they can go for advice. It is all right to say that you have the padre. He is only one man. If there is an institution with a Canadian emblem on it, with personnel who have training in that field and who are there to guide and advise the young soldier, it prevents an awful lot of difficulty. This bill should carry some provision along these lines. If you do not need it you do not have to use it. If it is necessary to use it, the provision is there to be used. It is not hard to pick an organization in this country today because Korea and Europe are a continuation of the thing we went into in 1939. It was never finished, and we had no right to start dismantling the necessary machinery.
This afternoon an hon. member made a proposal that I did not agree with. Perhaps he did not mean it the way I understood it. I want to be charitable. He said: there are benevolent funds, army benevolent funds, navy benevolent funds and air force benevolent funds. He suggested that those funds might be made available, on agreement with the services concerned, to provide recreational facilities in other parts of the world.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think he said that.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra shakes his head. When I started to make my remark I said it was possible I misunderstood him.


Howard Charles Green: I think he meant that they would be helpful in relief matters.


Clarence Gillis: That is the unfortunate part of the spoken word. It is not what is in your mind that counts; it is what you say, and the interpretation that can be placed upon it.


Howard Charles Green: You must have been talking to somebody else.


Clarence Gillis: I was sitting right here and I was listening very carefully. I said I hoped that that was not what he meant. It may be construed as meaning that by somebody reading Hansard. If that is what he meant I am opposed to it, and I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is opposed to it also, because he and I sat on the same committee, the canteen committee, when the matter of a benevolent fund in the services was discussed.

I did not agree with the benevolent fund at all. I said it presupposed unemployment and charity. There is no reason why servicemen should be overcharged in canteens, because the profits that accumulate in a canteen and are later placed in a fund are overcharges.


Mr. Harkness:: Don't forget the swill
account.


Clarence Gillis: Yes; you got a little of that. Not much of that-


Mr. Ferrie:: It sounds as if somebody has had something to do with it.


Clarence Gillis: Not very much of that is placed in the fund. The officers generally gather that all up for their mess. I never approved of the benevolent fund to start with. The navy did not approve of it; at least their representatives before the committee did not. Nevertheless it was set up. In my opinion the overcharge that accumulated and is now in the fund should be used for the purpose for which it was intended, namely, for service personnel and their dependents who are in difficulties. It is earmarked for that purpose. The recreational facilities that the troops in Korea are entitled to are the responsibility of this country, and the cost should be borne by the people of this country.
There is not much we can do with the bill now, but I would suggest to the parliamentary assistant who is in the house listening attentively, as he always does, that he pay attention to the discussion this afternoon, and if this bill does not cover what we are asking for this afternoon that he bring in another bill to provide "the necessary services for the troops in Korea. I am sure that later on the 27th brigade will be demanding the same thing. Provide some place where they can go that has a Canadian sign hanging outside, Canadian goods and Canadian cigarettes available to the boys, with Canadian personnel trained in the field of recreation so that these men can get advice and guidance when needed. These men are entitled to that kind of a little bit of home in so far as it is possible in the countries where they are making great sacrifices.
I listened with interest to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) describe the cigarette that is being served to the troops in Korea.
I thought we had got over that. I hope that the soldier in Korea, or any soldier in any part of the world in the future, representing this country, will not be compelled to smoke the kind of cigarettes we smoked in the first war. Apparently the leader of the opposition who smoked them in the first war has had a package sent to him. He would know what they are. It is an atrocity. It was not so bad
94699-75J
Canadian Forces Act
with us. We did not know the difference. The standards of smoking were very low at that time. We smoked Macdonald's twist in an old pipe, and that kind of thing. I think the tobacco was manufactured in Prince Edward Island. They have got away from that and have gone into potatoes instead of tobacco. In this day and age when there is so much good tobacco available and it so easy to get cigarettes, there is no reason why we should inflict that punishment on our troops in any part of the world. I believe that particular item calls for an immediate order in council. If upon an examination of the evidence the Department of National Defence finds that our troops in Korea are being compelled to smoke the type of cigarette described by the leader of the opposition, I believe the department would be justified in assuming it is a secret weapon put out by the enemy for the purpose of breaking the morale of our troops. An immediate order in council should be passed prohibiting any of our troops in any section of the world from smoking that kind of cigarette, and the penalty should be immediate court-martial.
I have made these few remarks merely for the purpose of provoking further thought on the part of the parliamentary assistant to the minister. I was rather disappointed to read in the press that the minister is in Europe now. I would like to have seen him take the position that this controversy about Korea is not doing us any good. At the behest of some sections of the forces, some people have been sent there to see what is happening along recreational lines. The situation is still not clear. I would have thought the minister would go there and see the situation himself. Perhaps he does not have to go thfere because the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) is there, and has been under fire. Perhaps when he comes back some immediate action will be taken by the department to take this discussion out of the realm of the press. It is not reflecting any credit on us, and it is not doing any good for the morale of our troops.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: I do pot
believe I can add a great deal to what has been said this afternoon, except to say that I agree one hundred per cent with all those who have spoken so far. From my experience during the last war, I know that during the periods when we had very little to do we found the service canteens a wonderful place to go. If we desired we could have a little coffee and sandwiches, or sit around and read. Educational and recreational facilities were there. While in the canteen we could do pretty much as we pleased. During the last war, and I believe during the first war, these

Canadian Forces Act
canteens certainly served a purpose. There is no reason why they should not be able to serve the same purpose during this Korean conflict.
If there are no recreational facilities, Mr. Speaker, for troops on leave, they are going to make their own. Some of the recreation that troops on their own make is not good. If they cause any damage or disturb the people among whom they are billeted, it is rather inclined to give the troops a bad name. Boredom is one of the greatest morale breakers the army has to face. If there are no facilities to relieve them of that boredom, the morale of the troops is going to hit an extremely low point. When we had no place to go during the last war, most of us ended up in some kind of trouble, probably not very bad but not very good either. I would urge the government, therefore, to set up some board or committee to investigate the matter of welfare for the troops while they are not in the front lines. The government could ascertain whether or not it would be a good idea to allow the major service clubs to again render the same services as they did during the last war. I think it would be a great help to public relations within the country if our men did have a place to go so that they could keep out of mischief.
I am a firm believer in all of these service clubs and the job that they do, not only for the physical welfare of the troops but the moral welfare as well. We know that while they are having some sort of supervised recreation they are not getting themselves into trouble; they are not bothering anyone, and are probably doing themselves a lot of good. The recre.ation that they find within these canteens set up by the various service organizations is good, wholesome fun. As I said before, the men can have lunches, buy cigarettes or soft drinks, and many of the things that they miss from around home. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has said, even if the service clubs give the boys Canadian cigarettes they would be doing a good job. I strongly urge the government and the minister to seriously consider accepting the offers of the service clubs so the boys will have something to do with their spare time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Last week, Mr. Speaker, the largest single group of returned veterans from Korea arrived in Calgary. They were two hundred members of the second battalion of the P.P.C.L.I. In Calgary they were released on thirty days' leave. A good many of them were men who had been stationed at Currie barracks or were from the vicinity of Calgary. Since some of

these men have now been in Calgary for some days, there is a considerable amount of direct information available as to conditions in Korea. I have just returned from spending three days in Calgary, and a considerable number of the people with whom I was talking brought up this very question. They had been talking to these returned men and the people were hot under the collar over the lack of amenities and auxiliary services. Most of these people were urging me to bring the matter again to the attention of the house. The information indicated that the services leave a great deal to be desired, and that they could be easily improved.
Now that the Canadian people are becoming aware of the lack of amenities in Korea, they are going to demand that whatever improvements can be made shall be made immediately. I believe the Department of National Defence should not lose any time in taking action. In spite of what has been said concerning the difficulty in having the Salvation Army, the Legion, or any of the other people who carried on the auxiliary services during the last war, act in Korea, I believe they could do a good job in Korea. If the department is determined not to put them into Korea, at least some of the other suggestions that have been made could be carried out. The boys can be supplied with Canadian cigarettes. Canteen facilities and things of that sort can be set up by the army itself. It seems to me that this is not a matter about which we should have to do any more really than to bring it to the attention of the Department of National Defence in order to have it corrected. I am greatly surprised that the matter has had to be brought before the house here time after time and that every time there has been expressed on the part of the government an apparent lack of desire to do anything about it. I hope there will no longer be that lack of desire to take any action.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to make one suggestion. It has already been alluded to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). I am not sure that we did not hatch the idea together and simultaneously, probably owing to our proximity in the house, as a result of the seating arrangement. It is that the minister might well take into consideration whether he should not go out and have a look at Korea himself. I make that suggestion not in any critical sense, because the minister referred to the fact that he had hoped and had intended to get out there but just had not found it possible to do so.
I accept without reservation his statement in that regard. But he is now in Europe where he is to meet the troops of the 27th

brigade which are arriving there. The men in Korea cannot, I think, help but observe the fact that the troops in Europe are only just arriving on the spot, and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is over there now to make certain that the arrangements for their reception and so forth are all that the people of Canada would have them; whereas the Canadian troops have been in Korea for a year and a half, and while it cannot be denied that senior officials and officers have been over there-the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) himself has just recently visited Korea-it is not quite the same thing as having there the minister in charge of the Department of National Defence.
Now that this controversy has arisen-and it can properly be described as a controversy-and in view of what the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) has just told us as to the attitude of the soldiers returning from Korea, I think it would be most advisable for the minister to make the special effort necessary to get to Korea, even if only for a short visit, in order to see for himself what the position is and what the feeling of the troops is. With the minister's well known desire to get things done when he gets to the bottom of a situation and finds out what the problem actually is, I am sure that, if he goes there and finds out what the problem is, we will have every confidence, as will the troops, that a fair and proper solution will immediately be implemented. Unless something like that is done, there is bound to be left with the troops the feeling that the matter has not received sufficiently thorough consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Knowles:: Is the parliamentary assistant not going to reply?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The parliamentary assistant has already spoken. If he wishes to speak again he will have to obtain the consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


Alphonse Fournier: the third reading of Bill No. 22, to implement the agreement between the parties to the North
North Atlantic Treaty
Atlantic treaty regarding the status of their forces, signed on the 19th of June, 1951.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is given third reading I should like to say some things that have been on my mind since we have been considering it. The time in which we live is a time in which the utmost clarity of thinking is essential if our way of life is even to survive. In this bill are clauses that could cause Canada much embarrassment. It is not the kind of bill I like to see go into our statute books. The only justification this parliament could give for passing this bill is the hope that in the Atlantic pact arrangement, called NATO for short, we might find means of increasing our security from war, means of augmenting our striking force both in defence and in offence.
Let us be careful not to delude ourselves. We are in grave danger of deluding ourselves in Canada today and all over the North American continent. The mere signing of the Atlantic pact can avail us but little. Already the indications of possible ineffectiveness of NATO constitute reasons for genuine alarm. Hon. members will recall that not so long ago General Eisenhower was to have an army of sixty divisions. By November 8 the hoped-for army had shrunk to forty-three divisions, and by November 12 it had shrunk to twenty divisions. Russia alone is reported to have 14 million men ready to march. To meet that massive array even sixty divisions were pathetically inadequate. What must we concede in respect of only the twenty divisions that we are assembling now?
The question that ought to come, and must be coming, into everybody's mind is this: Why in the world is it that all these nations in Europe that, with us, have formed NATO, are unable to put into the field large forces of men whereas in world war I and world war II they were able to contribute tremendously? What has gone wrong? The reason, Mr. Speaker, is economic. They simply cannot produce the necessary goods. If they cannot produce the food, clothing and shelter to keep troops fit, and if they cannot produce the necessary guns and munitions of war, then certainly they cannot put the men into the field. What are we going to do about it?
I will say this in a general way. Unless the British nations, including the United States, can find means of bolstering the economies of such nations as France, Belgium and other continental countries-the NATO nations-then the passing of this bill is about as important to security through NATO as would be the addition of the five-hundredth bit of tinsel to a highly decorated Christmas tree. If Canada is to have any substantial

North Atlantic Treaty
chance of gaining security through NATO, we must adopt adequate economic measures to support the NATO nations of Europe, including Britain.
To support the validity of what I have just said, may I use Britain as an illustration. The other day I advocated that we should advance a credit to Britain. There were those who thought that my reason was that I was imperialistic and pro-British and all that sort of nonsense. Those people are simply deluding themselves. In the case of Britain there is a real need which we must face or we shall suffer, just as surely as we are sitting here in the House of Commons.
The facts of our time once more force Britain to call: "Send us the tools and we will finish the job." The job is there to finish. It is there, big, ugly, risky, lengthy-more so than it was before. For America, for Canada and for each Canadian-and I mean each-the question is easy to see and easy to understand. Shall we send Britain's boys the tools to finish the job, or shall we refuse Britain's boys the tools, through refusing economic aid to Britain, and then finally buy the tools anyway and send Canadian boys to deliver them?
Britain does not flinch; she does not quail; she does not shirk. Her head is bare, still bloody, but unbowed. Britain will do all she can; but she cannot fight her best without food, without clothes and without shelter to keep her people fit; not only her forces, but her people. She cannot fight MIG jets with hand staves, or Stalin tanks with ox-carts.
The war that now threatens-and this is a good thing for certain Canadians in Canada to keep in mind-is not of Britain's making. It is not of the making of the British commonwealth, either in whole or in part, directly or indirectly. Neither was world war II a war of Britain's making, nor was world war I a war of Britain's making in any sense or degree. In each and every one of these calamities we have been the victims of the scheming of others. Certain mighty international forces have rolled their muddy currents through the deeps of the world. Each of these forces aims to obtain full dominion over mankind. It aims to set up a dictatorship of the world.
That is the bare and ugly fact facing us all. Britain has aimed and still aims at freeing the world. She and her "company of nations," her dominions and colonies, have stood as an invincible Gibraltar, squarely in the path of each would-be tyrant; and she has stood there for generation upon generation. Britain therefore stands right in
[Mr. Blaekmore.l
the course of each of these mighty movements. The captain of each of these movements feels that, with Britain wrecked, his way to world conquest would be clear. Anyone who doubts the truth of that solemn statement had better make sure of his facts and details, because he is just mistaken.
What will Canadians do about this matter? On November 12 I proposed in the house that Canada give Britain a line of credit for each of the years 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956. Rumours have reached me that some Canadians have begun to talk about opposing such material aid to Britain. I wonder if those Canadians have thought into this problem deeply enough; and I mean any Canadian in Canada, I do not care who he is, or what his language or his belief may be. Let every man in Canada realize that he is jointly responsible with everybody else in Canada for the defence of this nation and the welfare of this nation; and it does not matter what his prejudices are, or who his grandfathers or great-grandfathers were.
At mid-1945 in world war II Britain had in uniform, in the field, in the air and on the sea 5,090,000 men and women. That was with lend-lease and mutual aid in full operation, and of course drawing complete aid from Amerioa. As of July 1, 1951, she had 957,000. For that figure I refer hon. members to a pamphlet called "Britain's Defence Effort," issued in July of 1951 by the central office of information at London. The information in question is at page 17.
May I talk to our anti-aid to Britain Canadians for a while. I would talk straight to them, every one of them. Would our antiaid to Britain Canadians like to see Britain put and keep in the battlelines for freedom over five million fighters, as in world war II; or would they prefer to see Britain keep home four million of those men and women? Or would they still more prefer that Britain be forced to bring home 400,000 of her present
900,000	fighters? That is just exactly what they are asking for when they oppose aid to Britain. The thing would work just as simply as that.
Britain in world war II supplied and threw into freedom's cause prodigious quantities of goods and services. Over and above a general contribution well-nigh incalculable and incomprehensible, Britain contrived to give outright to Russia, and likewise to deliver, vast amounts of supplies. Do our anti-aid to Britain Canadians desire a British performance comparable with that in world war II for world war III, or do they desire that Britain shall be able to produce and put into the conflict far, far less than that?

If Britain is unable to obtain the means with which to produce goods and services, it is a sure thing she will not be able to produce them. The question has got to be asked and answered by every Canadian and every American. Where is Britain going to get the goods if we do not provide them for her, bearing in mind that Britain, as I said in my speech on November 12, has lost nearly all foreign investments upon which she relied for the provision of those goods in world war II? It is the plainest kind of common sense. There is no passion mixed up in it at all; it is just common sense, but of fearful urgency.
Britain for at least one hundred years has been gradually broadening the basis of freedom in the British empire and common-wealth.The British North America Act was one of the first examples. Have our anti-aid to Britain enthusiasts forgotten that it was the British parliament that passed the British North America Act? No more perfect constitution exists on earth than the constitutions of Canada and Australia. They are both British constitutions, both guaranteed by Britain and the British empire.
Have our anti-aid to Britain enthusiasts forgotten that constitutions like those of Canada and Australia need adequate protection-and just think of Australia during world war II, with Japan threatening her- by a power strong enough to protect yet wise and noble enough to guarantee perpetuation of those liberties?
Canadians from Quebec and other provinces cherish with jealous vigilance their provincial sovereignty, and rightly so. They prize their liberty to speak their own language, and rightly so. They would give their all at any moment to keep their privilege to worship almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience, and rightly so. They dread conscription with a violent passion, which is of course their right and which is strictly a British point of view, down through the hundreds of years. Have they forgotten that for over a century Britain has guaranteed them language and religious freedom?


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: We fought for it.


John Horne Blackmore: So did Britain.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: We fought for our language.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, of course you did, and Britain fought for it many times; do not forget that.


Pierre Gauthier: We do not forget anything.
North Atlantic Treaty


John Horne Blackmore: And by the British North America Act, the Balfour declaration and the statute of Westminster, Britain has guaranteed their provincial sovereignty both by declaration and solemn enactment.
Have they failed to take note how lightly NATO delegates talk about setting up an over-all agency with authority to modify the sovereignty not only of provinces such as Quebec but of nations such as Canada? In other words, do they realize that what men are talking about at NATO conferences is taking away sovereignty from all the nations that join that organization? Have the implications of all of this been utterly lost upon these Canadians? Is it not clear that the only alternative to NATO would be a British commonwealth, powerful as that commonwealth might be? A British commonwealth, no matter how powerful it might become, would guarantee the absolute sovereignty of every member and every part of that commonwealth.
I wonder if these anti-aid to Britain Canadians have given thought to what might happen to the freedom of some Canadians to worship as they please if Russia laid her unholy hands upon Rome, a thing which I understand Russia longs passionately to do. What is their surest safeguard against such a contingency if it is not a powerful Britain and a powerful British commonwealth?
Have certain Canadians considered what might happen to their language liberties if a certain nation enclosed them in its almost covetous embrace? A revitalized British commonwealth offers the most potent security against such a development.
Have the anti-conscription Canadians contemplated what possible chance they would have of keeping their sons from conscription if a NATO such as is being dreamed of was brought into being?
In my speech of November 12 I indicated how much it would mean economically to Canada if she provided Britain with enough Canadian dollars to buy surplus Canadian production. Have the anti-aid to Britain debaters overlooked those remarks of mine which may be found on page 921 of Hansard? I defy anyone to question the validity of that statement, either in this house or out. May I suggest that they take a second look at the results to Canadian producers of commodities such as eggs, cheese, pork, fruits, syrup, dried milk that would flow from a liberal Canadian policy of credit toward Great Britain. All they have to do is look back to world war II. As I pointed out on November 12, we had the thing exemplified then.
There will be those who will say, "Oh, well, Uncle Sam will advance dollars to Britain

North Atlantic Treaty
and Canadians will be allotted a share of those dollars". Do such arguers not realize that, in saying that, they are actually planning subservience to the United States? Men who have devoted much of their time and thought to fighting any hint of subservience to Britain are quite ready to pave the way for subservience to the United States, which would be far more unbreakable and intolerable than anything Britain ever inflicted upon them. Do they realize that? I must leave it with them.
Some will ask, "Can we afford it? Taxes already are ruinous, and debts are alarming".
I agree completely that taxes are far heavier than they should be, that debts are far bigger and far heavier than they would have been if a sound financial policy had been in force in this country, even since world war I. Let me assure all Canadians that to grant the credit I propose to Britain would not cost Canada one cent of money, either in taxes or in added debt. I should like to read from the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada, known as the Macmillan report, and I quote from page 22, paragraph 47 as follows:
47. In the war session of August, 1914, parliament raised the partially covered issue to $50 million. Subsequently an issue of $16 million was made against a deposit of railway securities guaranteed by the dominion government, as well as an uncovered issue of $10 million for governmental purposes. In 1917 an emergency issue of $50 million of dominion notes was made to finance war purchases in Canada, by the British government. The notes were secured by imperial treasury bills. In due course, this indebtedness was liquidated by payments from the British treasury and all of this issue had been redeemed by 1927. No changes have since been made in the Dominion Notes Act except that by a statute passed on 30th March, 1933, the governor in council was empowered to suspend the redemption in gold of dominion notes, and an order in council to this effect was made on 10th April, 1933.
That report was made in 1933, one year or so before the Bank of Canada Act was passed. Had the Bank of Canada Act been enacted at that time the commission would not have been quite so sanguine about the Canadian Department of Finance, because the Bank of Canada Act took away from the Department of Finance the power or at least the function of creating money, and lodged it in the Bank of Canada. After that, in order to get any money from the Bank of Canada the government had to borrow or pretended it had to borrow it from the Bank of Canada. May I urge once more that we advance Great Britain the credits which I advocated on November 12. In order that anyohe who has not seen that Hansard shall know what I then advocated, I am going to read from page 921.


Alphonse Fournier: On a point of order, I do not think we are in order with this discussion. What is before the house is the third reading of a bill to implement the agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic treaty regarding the status of their forces. The hon. member is dealing with another matter entirely, and I suggest to him that another occasion will arise when he could more properly make these remarks. He made them once on November 12 and it seems rather far-fetched to discuss the matters he is discussing at this time.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not know whether the Minister of Public Works was in the chamber when I made my introductory remarks. If this bill is worth passing, if it is worth the attention of this house at the present time, it must give some guarantee that NATO is going to do us some good. If Britain is weakened economically so that she is unable to perform her part in NATO 1 suggest that the whole NATO organization, so far as Europe is concerned, will collapse. I think I can safely defend that suggestion against anybody. We are discussing NATO, and in that case nothing could be more appropriate than to indicate the extreme importance of our adopting measures to support the NATO nations economically.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the principle of the bill before the house. He should not discuss the policies of other member nations of NATO. I would ask him to be more relevant and confine his remarks to the principle of the bill.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not discussing the economic policy of any nation but Canada, and Canada is vitally concerned.


Alphonse Fournier: Under this bill we would not be in order to discuss even the economic policy of our country. We have signed an agreement with the other nations of NATO regarding the status of our forces. 1 think the hon. member's remarks should be confined to that.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, once more may I point out to the minister that there just is no use passing this bill if the whole NATO organization is going to collapse. May I suggest to the minister that his complaint about my repeating myself is false. He said that last spring. He attacked me for repeating myself and I did not.


Alphonse Fournier: I resent that. I am taking the hon. member's own words. He said: "I stated this on the 12th and I am going to repeat it now."


John Horne Blackmore: If a person has not the right to read a quotation from his own speech I think his rights are pretty well gone.


Alphonse Fournier: He cannot discuss the same question twice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The principle of the bill is contained in the schedule at the end of the bill. It is an act to implement the agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic treaty regarding the status of their forces, signed on the 19th day of June, 1951. There is the principle of the bill, and I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the agreement.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I gather from what has been said that the objection largely arises from the fact that I was going to read a quotation from my speech on November 12, but I will endeavour to do exactly as you suggest. I have no desire to be out of order, but I believe this message is one that should be delivered at this time in the House of Commons of Canada. I suggest, as I said a minute ago, that what I said in the paragraph I was about to read on page 921 of Hansard concerning the kind of credits we should advance to Great Britain should stand. I support exactly what I said then, every word of it. In making this proposal for credits to Great Britain, may I remind Canadians that if and when Britain approaches America for aid, Britain will not be coming as a poor relation, one who has shown lack of diligence in earning or of thrift in spending wealth. Britain has amply provided the United States and Canada with far, far more than we can ever pay back.
May I revert to the matter of the quantities of goods and services Great Britain produced and threw without stint and almost without limit into world war II? I suggest that hon. members read a publication entitled, "What Britain Has Done, 1939-1945", issued by the British ministry of information on May 9, 1945. If I could have the consent of the house to put them on Hansard, I would not burden hon. members by reading the passages I have in mind. I wish to read three relatively short excerpts from this pamphlet, and if I have the permission of the house to put them on the record I will not read them now.


Alphonse Fournier: Again may we know whether these excerpts will relate to the bill?


John Horne Blackmore: They will relate to the part that Great Britain played in world war II and will clearly indicate that unless Great Britain is enabled to participate in world war 94699-76
North Atlantic Treaty
III now coming up as effectively as she did in world war II, there is not much use expecting NATO to be of any help.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member having explained it in the way that he has, I do not think we can agree to these excerpts being put on Hansard if they have no relation to the bill under discussion. I know my hon. friend wants to be in order at all times, and perhaps the suggestion at this time will be well received. I have no objection to all these nice speeches. I enjoy them very much when they are related to the question under debate.


John Horne Blackmore: I will bow to the minister. I will merely say that the passages I desired to quote are found on page 38 of the publication to which I have referred, dealing with what Great Britain did for Russia, on page 39 dealing with what Great Britain did for China, and on page 36 dealing with what Great Britain did for the United States. I am sure there will be people in the country who will desire to read those quotations and judge as to the justification for Great Britain approaching Canada and the United States for additional material aid if and when she approaches us for such aid.
Canadian and United States citizens must soon make a decision as to whether or not they desire to win the struggle for freedom or whether they are more concerned about wrecking Great Britain, the foremost bulwark of freedom. With that suggestion to them, may I urge once more that there just is no use at all of our considering bills like the one before us today until we have the means provided whereby we can make NATO a working success. If we do not provide the means for Great Britain and NATO to succeed all of these measures are simply foolish childishness. With that, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling. If I get the opportunity some time I will put more of this information on the record. I am sure it is beneficial for all North Americans to have this information now, when there still is time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of Bill No. 19, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act.


Howard Charles Green: May we have a statement,
please?

Bills of Exchange Act


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the principal purpose of the bill is to enable the chartered banks of Canada to operate on a five-day week if they should desire to do so, that five-day week to be from Monday until Friday. There are two reasons for this action at this time. The first is that the managements of the Canadian banks have found it increasingly difficult to secure adequate and competent staffs for their offices across Canada, especially in the larger cities, because of the competition given to them by other establishments employing clerical help which are on the five-day week. More and more bank managers find that the first question asked by prospective employees, even before wages are discussed, is: Are you on the five-day week? Because of that situation the bank managements are very anxious to have the legal obstacles removed.
The second point is one which concerns the employees, and has already been raised by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) and the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Rooney) during the present session. It has also been raised by other members in correspondence. I refer to the fact that because of these legal obstacles employees of the chartered banks of Canada have not the privilege of negotiating with their employers on hours of work as have most other classes of employees in the country. The banks, as I say, up to now have regarded certain provisions not in the Bank Act but in the Bills of Exchange Act as prohibiting them from closing on Saturday morning, and the amendments in the bill, which are few in number, are designed to remove these obstacles. Perhaps I can summarize the amendments by saying that they have the effect of making Saturday a nonjuridical day as far as bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes are concerned, without actually placing Saturday on the list of legal holidays.
One other point I should mention is that although these amendments are being made at the request of the banks their effect is not confined to banking operations. Their effect of course will be felt on all bills of exchange, promissory notes and cheques. The only other thing is that since the banks asked for this legislation they of course were consulted in the drafting of it, and they have expressed themselves as being satisfied that the legislation does give them the opportunity of closing on Saturday if they should so wish.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think it
can be said at once that as far as the official opposition is concerned this bill in principle is accepted. It is now a principle of our labour legislation that matters of hours of work, wages and so on should be settled by


free collective bargaining between employer and employees. As the parliamentary assistant has just said, it is not possible in the banking business, for the reasons he has given, for the employers and employees to bargain and settle this matter on the basis of free negotiation, because of the legal restrictions against working only five days, owing to the provision with respect to Saturday. Apparently this bill therefore would remove that obstacle and leave the question of whether or not the banks have a five-day week to be settled as a result of negotiation, collective bargaining, between the banks and their employees.
Since this bill is not in any sense a direction to the banks, or to the banks' employees, as to their decision in the matter, but merely permits them to arrive at a decision, I do not think we can have any objection to it. I think we must support it because it furthers that principle of collective bargaining.
I have only this to say with respect to the five-day week. It is an extremely difficult problem. There are a tremendous number of conflicting interests. In the cities and in the towns it is felt to be of overriding importance that since practically all other employees are on a five-day week it is so unfair that bank employees should not have the same privilege. That may be the overriding factor in the case of the banks in the large cities; but there are other conflicting interests, particularly in smaller cities and country towns, where Saturday has traditionally been the day on which the farmers come to town to do their shopping. In many places it is still the marketing day. In most country towns it is still the day on which the farmer and his family come to town to do their shopping for the week, and to transact their business in town which they have been waiting until Saturday to get into town to do. If the banks are to be closed on Saturday, then it is obvious there will be conflicts and difficulties. I think this is a matter where one should not express a hard and fast opinion, simply because there are so many different factors governing the decision to be made in the various centres, and by the banks also, as to whether they will close all their branches, or only some of their branches, or how they will work the thing out.
Having made these few general remarks, I want to put in a plea particularly for the country districts, and I hope that no hard and fast approach will be made. I hope there will be a willingness to bargain and concede; that in these places where it will be a matter of great inconvenience to the public if the banks are to be closed on Saturday there will be some willingness to

concede, and some room for negotiation. On the 'other hand, I think there should be the same willingness to concede in these places where there will be no such hardship, particularly in the larger cities, so that the same willingness to negotiate may be displayed there; and where it will not do any harm the five-day week may be implemented. Beyond expressing that general hope I do not think that we in this parliament should go any further in expressing an opinion as to what should be the decision one way or another.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, a large number of the working people in the constituency that I have the honour to represent are already on the five-day week. Those who do not yet enjoy -the five-day week hope that the day when such will be their privilege is not far off. Accordingly, I am sure the people of my constituency, like the people of similar constituencies across Canada, will agree that if the principle of the five-day week is good for one group of workers it is good for other groups of workers; therefore I am happy to support this bill.
I was pleased to hear the words "negotiation" and "collective bargaining" used in connection with this matter. In other words, I am glad to note that bank clerks and bank employees realize that -they are workers like the rest of us, and that like other workers they feel they have similar rights.
I note the way in which this matter is being handled. It is being put on a permissive basis. The federal government is not by legislation dictating to the banks that -they have to close on Saturdays, but rather provision is being made so that, once this amendment to the Bills of Exchange Act has been passed, they can go on -the five-day week if they wish.
The parliamentary assistant, -in speaking on the bill, said that it would deal with other types of business as well as banking. I am glad to note, of course, that there is in the bill a provision which indicates that cheques and other instruments may still be issued on Saturday and cashed or negotiated by any who are in a position to do so. The reason I mention that is that I think attention should be drawn to it so there will not be any confusion in the minds of the people, any notion that once this goes through they can no longer write or cash cheques on Saturday.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, speaking in support of the principle of the five-day week for bank employees, I should like to say a few other words in connection with the same principle. The parliamentary assistant has pointed out that this bill merely 94699-76J
Bills of Exchange Act
makes it possible for the banks to go on the five-day week. But at least the government is going that far. I feel -they should likewise give a lead with respect to their own employees. Quite a number of groups of workers employed by -the federal government are already on the five-day week. I would suggest that serious consideration be given to extending the five-day week to all government employees. I could mention groups such as one we were discussing the other night, namely the printing bureau, and others. The government knows the various groups, some of which are already on the five-day week and some of which are not. I suggest that if the fact that many employees have a five-day week is the reason bank employees should have it, it is also a reason civil servants and government employees generally should have -a five-day week.
The other thought I should like to leave with the government on this occasion-and I shall do so very briefly-is to express the hope that the government will give even more consideration-I am glad to note that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is in his place, for this -comes under his jurisdiction- to the -possibility of extending legislation with regard to the five-day week for workers generally, even though this may have to be done by co-operation between the dominion and the provinces.
On November 5 of this year, in reply to certain questions that I had placed on the order paper, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour gave an answer, as recorded on pages 690 and 691 of Hansard, indicating that representations concerning the forty-hour week, or the five-day week, have been made to the federal government. These representations have come mainly from trade unions. We now know that similar representations have come from the banks on their own behalf and on behalf of their employees. The answer given on the pages of Hansard to which I have referred suggested that the Prime Minister had made a certain reply to Mr. A. R. Mosher concerning this matter, and -that the Minister of Labour had written a letter on July 24, 1951, concerning this question to Mr. George Burt. The letter from the Minister of Labour was a little longer than the letter from the Prime Minister. I was glad to note that the Minister of Labour said that officials in his department were actually discussing and studying the whole question of the effect of a shorter work week on- the productivity of labour, which is one of the reasons for seeking shorter hours.
Both the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) pointed out in these letters that under the

Bills of Exchange Act property and civil rights clause of the British North America Act this was a matter which they felt had to be left to the provinces. For my part I still am not convinced that the fathers of confederation had that in mind when they wrote property and civil rights into section 92, namely that that should include labour matters for all time. In fact I have read some authorities on the subject who feel the very opposite to be the case. Nevertheless I do recognize the fact that down through the years court decisions have established that labour matters do, for the most part, come under provincial jurisdiction. There are, of course, certain classes of workers, such as railway workers, for example, who do come under federal labour jurisdiction. It so happens we already have the five-day week for railway workers, as a result of the Kellock award following the strike of a year ago.
Despite the fact it is argued that hours of work are a provincial matter, I am glad to say there is such a thing as co-operation and liaison between the provincial and federal governments, and in particular there is co-operation and liaison between the provincial and federal departments of labour. I hope now that the federal government has given this lead by facilitating the five-day week for bankers, the Minister of Labour will see to it that further consideration is given to ways and means of bringing into being legislation to provide a five-day week for workers generally. We have had amendments to the constitution-


Mr. McLure:: What about a five-day week for farmers?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would agree. As I was saying, we have had amendments to the constitution for other matters that have been thought to be solely provincial, and I am sure the constitutional barrier is one that could be hurdled if there were a will to do it.
During the last week or two references have been made in the house to growing pockets of unemployment, particularly in some parts of Ontario. A while ago I drew the attention of the government to unemployment in my city of Winnipeg amongst the carpenters and other building trades people. I asked the government to look into the possibility of going ahead with defence contracts which are already planned for the Winipeg area. These are ancillary reasons for giving consideration to the forty-hour week at this time. The more important consideration, of course, is that a shorter work week is one way of
[Mr Knowles.]

passing on to the workers of this country some of the value that comes from increased productivity.
I feel that this is an important matter. It is one in which workers generally are deeply interested. Indeed, when the workers across the country hear that the bank employees have joined their ranks and have secured from parliament the five-day week, they will say, "That is good; let us now have legislation which will make it possible to extend the five-day week to all workers in Canada". I believe that is what should be done.


William Gilbert Weir: I did not intend entering this discussion, Mr. Speaker, and I shall do so for only a moment or two. I guess I was brought up in the old school. When I started out the seven-day week was general. I am wondering if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has taken sufficient consideration of the farming industry, particularly the dairying and poultry sections of it, and those who use the horse as the source of power in their farming operations. I am bound to say that is one angle of this situation which has not been faced. While it may be very well to say that you can double your shifts or something of that nature, it certainly carries with it the implication that costs will go up considerably.
Having in mind what the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) said, that the cities will be affected in one way and rural places in another, I hope this thing will not be worked out too rigidly. I go along with the government in endorsing this legislation, but the point I have in mind at the moment is that many of our smaller towns have in more recent years adopted the practice of taking a half holiday each week. As the hon. member for Kamloops pointed out, Saturday is usually market day, so it means that the business centres must use some other day of the week for their half holiday or we shall run into a serious situation. It might be that the rest of the town would be closed on Thursday afternoons and the banks would be closed on Saturdays. 1 would hope that that particular situation might be kept in mind when the banks are arranging to carry out this new proposal.


Clarence Gillis: This bill, Mr. Speaker, does not make it mandatory for the banks to establish a five-day week. All the bill does is pave the way for the banks to inaugurate a five-day week if they so desire. There is nothing to compel them to do it. In my opinion there is no section of business in Canada that requires reorganization with respect to hours and other

considerations more than do the banks. I am not going into the details, because a lot of research has been done in connection with working hours and conditions of bank employees. I do not know of any employees in the country who, over the years, have worked under tougher conditions than the bank employees. Since the end of the war there has been some relaxation, but I do not think it is a fair analysis of the bill for anyone to suggest that this means the five-day week for bank employees. If there is anything the Department of Finance can do to hurry along the five-day week for bank employees, I believe it should be done. I cannot see how there is going to be any disruption of business in any part of the country because of this bill. As I see it, there is going to be plenty of time to get the five-day week system established in the banks.
On that point of the five-day week, I believe the Department of Labour has to do some serious thinking. With the technological development we have on this continent today, if we ever get the defence program off our hands we are going to have a serious employment problem.


William Gilbert Weir: That is what they said in 1945, too.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you; I agree with you. We are going to have to do considerable thinking about the revision of the hours of labour if the average person is going to receive any advantage from the technological advances. I compliment the Department of Finance for thinking about relieving the stresses and strains of one section of employees by giving the banks the right to do this if they so desire. It is not mandatory. There is going to be time for reasonable changes in the community where changes are necessary.
Every time someone suggests that there should be changes in the hours of labour, someone hollers that the farmer should have a five-day week. I say he should have it. He should organize for it. I should like to see some farmer get up and put on record the hours that the average farmer works, section by section, across Canada. I do not say that I know. But a forty-hour week for fifty weeks a year, would make 2,000 hours a year. I should like to see some farmer who knows- and I said that I did not-get up and put on the record chapter and verse showing the house and the country that a farmer is actually working at his trade for 2,000 hours a year. I would point out that there are many different kinds of farmers in this country. Just as there is no comparison between a bank employee and a person who
Bills of Exchange Act
works in a heavy industry, so there is no comparison between mixed farming, machine farming, dairy farming and the various types of farming. But they are all covered under the one heading of farming. As to the suggestion that we reduce the hours of the farmer, the hours of the farmer are made by himself-


Mr. Cardiff:: Not necessarily.


Clarence Gillis: Certainly they are.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: They are made by the conditions under which he works.


Clarence Gillis: Do not forget that any worker in this country who today enjoys the eight-hour day, theoretically, in most provinces had to fight for it. They had to fight in order to get those hours. They had to scrap year after year. I do not know what hours the farmer is working. But when you ask for something that is a necessity in this day and age because of technological advance, such as a rearrangement of hours of labour to provide some leisure for those who toil hard in order to get some of the benefits of the machine, I do not think it is good enough that someone who is largely regulating his own hours of work should say: "What about the farmer. If he cuts his hours down, you will starve." I do not believe that. I do not believe I would starve if they all quit. 1 still have two hands and two feet, and I believe I could rustle up a bite to eat for myself. That is a fairly broad statement to make-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: 
Clarence Gillis: -that the country would starve if someone who is growing grain out in western Canada were to stop.


Mr. Fair:: You have to have food before you can get close enough to wrestle with it.


Clarence Gillis: For the benefit of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) may I say that the question of whether or not we eat does not depend on the farmer so much as it does on ourselves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must ask him to confine his remarks to a discussion of the principle of the bill.


Clarence Gillis: I just get a little bit tired of listening to these people getting up and saying that someone would starve, making that sort of argument, when you are trying to arrange the hours of labour and when the stiff old Department of Finance-which should be considered the most reactionary department of the government, the department that is sitting tight on the dollar and is supposed to be so immovable as far as the

Bills of Exchange Act
status quo is concerned-brings in a bill that says they are satisfied to give the banks the right to establish a five-day week if and when it is possible to do so. It irritates me to hear a group in the house immediately raise the argument: What about the farmer? Should he not get a five-day week? Certainly he should. But he has to start looking for it.


Angus MacInnis: There is no bill against it.


Clarence Gillis: No; there is no bill against it.


William Gilbert Weir: Sometimes the weather is against it.


Clarence Gillis: I am glad to see this legislation brought in. As far as I am concerned I do not think anyone in this country is going to starve. Anyone who has a cheque to cash has five days in the week in which to cash it. The question raised by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) is a good one. There are sections of the country where this change may cause some dislocation, but I think it is a matter that could be ironed out.
I think the bill as affecting the bank employees deserves the commendation of every member of this house, and it should find general acceptance.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has pointed out, this bill does not institute a five-day week but makes it possible for the banks to institute a five-day week if they so desire. Personally I do not think this is a particularly good time to push for a five-day week, .the very time when we are being warned about the dangers of inflation and that the only way to avoid inflation is to increase production. You are certainly not going to increase production by a five-day week, in my opinion. On the other hand I agree that if the workers have better living conditions and better health, they are able to work much better when they are working. But I think the time to fight for shorter hours is at a time when surpluses are appearing and when unemployment is increasing; but that is hardly the situation today.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said he would like to see the five-day week introduced into all industries so that all workers could benefit. Then the hon. member for Cape Breton South said he would like to see farmers in the same position and he could not see why farmers could not institute a five-day week if they so desired. Of course the majority of farmers are working for themselves. We are not talking about farm labour at the present moment. I am sure those farmers would all like to have a five-day week if they could. But the main
fMr. Gillis.]
difficulty farmers face today is to get a six-day week. Most of them have to work seven days. I do not say they have to work a full seven days, but they have to work a full six days; and then there is a certain amount of work they have to do on Sunday because cows have to be milked, livestock have to be fed, barns have to be cleaned out, and all that kind of work has to be done. Therefore it is not a question of a five-day week; it is a question of a seven-day week for all those farmers who have livestock. I am not talking about the straight grain farmer.
I thought the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) raised a good point. Saturday is the main business day in the rural areas. Farmers come to town on Saturdays. Since last spring they have had to suffer one great inconvenience. When they want to bring their cream in to ship it, they find that the railway depot is closed. If they want to make sure that their cream goes on the train, they have to get there just as the train comes in and put it on; and they have to be there to accept the empty cream cans. Otherwise the cream is likely to be left there until Monday. They have to be there just when the train comes in. At some points the train comes in late at night or early in the morning. It is extremely inconvenient for a farmer to have to get up at two or three o'clock in the morning in order to be at the depot when the train arrives. The depot is open only five days a week. The farmers have to make arrangements to be there when the train comes in order to get their produce shipped and in order to receive their empty cream cans. Now of course they will have the additional trouble that when they go to town on Saturday they will not be able to do any banking. They will therefore have to rearrange their whole plans and come to town on Wednesday or Thursday. I am not saying that could not be done.
Personally, I do not see how you can introduce a five-day week with regard to farmers, because there is so much work that has to be done. At the present time there is a shortage of labour. It is a difficult job to get enough labour to do the work when you are working six days a week or even seven; but as I said when I started, we are not opposing this bill. We should like to see a five-day week instituted as rapidly as posible. But I suggest that this is not a particularly good time to be pushing it, when everybody is stressing the need for increased production in order to help bring about a reduction in prices.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: 
Mr. J. S. Sinnoll (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) and the hon. member who has just taken his seat. At the present time we are faced with the serious problem of inflation. Every time I hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rise in his place and advocate shorter hours with more pay and less work, I feel that he is helping this serious inflationary trend more than anyone else I know.
In common with the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I had a dairy herd before coming to the House of Commons. I had to get up at six o'clock in the morning so the cattle could be fed and milked, and the milk ready in the cans and in place to be picked up by the truck at seven o'clock in the morning. We were never through our work before eight o'clock at night. I suggest the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) does not figure very well. I figure 4,380 hours for the 365 days in the year, at twelve hours a day. If dairy farmers were paid at the rate of people working in factories, milk would not be 20 cents a quart, but would be nearer 50 cents or 60 cents.
If the banks are insisting upon the five-day week for their employees, in those towns where Wednesday afternoon is a holiday, if the banks would be content to have Wednesday instead of Saturday it would be satisfactory so far as I am concerned. Most farmers come to town on Saturday afternoon and it would be most inconvenient if, upon arriving in town, they found the banks closed. I must say therefore that I am not in favour of the closing of banks on Saturday mornings. However, if they insist upon the five-day week I would not object to their taking Wednesday afternoon.

Bills of Exchange Act


Robert McCubbin: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to get into this controversy with respect to farmers and labour, but I do wish to say something in respect of the five-day week as applied to the banks. I have every sympathy with the workers in banks; they work hard and long. Nevertheless I do not think anything could be more unpopular than the closing of banks on Saturday morning, because not only the farmers but the workers as well will suffer. In the constituency I represent those who work in factories are paid on Friday. They go to the banks on Saturday morning to cash their cheques, and on Saturday afternoon they pay their bills, which have been running for two weeks.
Two classes will suffer; those who work in the factories, and the farmers. Then in my constituency the farmers ship cattle on Saturday mornings. They receive their cheques and go to the banks to deposit them. They do not want to run to town every day of the week, when one day should be sufficient. That day is Saturday morning.
While I support this measure, nevertheless I think it is a most unpopular move in respect of both farmers and workers.


George Alexander Drew: For the information of the house, may we be told whether, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), what has been said by his parliamentary assistant can be taken as the official position of the Department of Agriculture. It would be helpful to the house to know whether that statement can be taken as the view of the department?


Robert McCubbin: I speak for myself, and nobody else.


Mr. G. S. White (Haslings-Pelerborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am not a farmer, but I do agree with comments made by hon. members who are farmers and who represent farm communities. I realize that this measure is simply to amend the Bills of Exchange Act so that the banks, as soon as it is passed, will be in a position where they can close all day Saturday. From what I have learned from my banker friends, that is their intention.
The parliamentary assistant mentioned, as one reason given by the banks for this change, the fact that they are unable to get help in competition with other occupations having a a five-day week. If the banks paid somewhat higher wages I think they would have little difficulty in getting the type of help they require. It is not long ago that the banks from coast to coast instituted a program whereby banking hours on Saturday morning were changed to 9 to 11. That change was
tMr. Sinnott.]
made without consulting anyone. It mattered little to them whether it suited the tens of thousands of bank customers. The change was made as a convenience to the banks. So far as I know-and I have had some experience in dealing with banks and bank customers-that move was very unpopular.
I know, further, that if banks are going to close all day Saturday it will be most unpopular. After all, banks in Canada enjoy an exclusive monopoly. They render certain services to the public in the smaller places which cannot be rendered by any other organization because in those communities there are no trust companies or anything of that nature.
If this bill passes and the banks are clear as far as the Bills of Exchange Act is concerned, they will have a five-day week. That is not going to be popular in the rural communities of Ontario, as it will hinder many operations. Much has been said in the house about the five-day week. I think that is one of the curses of this country today. Nobody wants to work. When you and I were young, Mr. Speaker, who ever thought of a five-day week? If we had worked only a five-day week you would not be sitting up there and I would not be sitting down here. The sooner we get away from this idea of a five-day week with everyone from coast to coast being supported by the government, the sooner we get some more backbone in us, the sooner we will have a better country.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I think there have been some good points made by non-farmer and farmer members, and also some statements that are not so good. The five-day week, as we have it, is a matter of bargaining between employer and worker. The worker tries to drive the hardest bargain he can in the sale of his labour. The shorter the hours of work and the higher his wages, from his point of view the better bargain he has made. That is the way we look at these things in this commercial world. The five-day week has not come about as a matter of government policy; it is a matter of bargaining or, if you like, pressure as between one group and another. Whether it was socially desirable or not was never a matter for consideration. If the industrial work of this country was carried on in the same way as a great part of our farming is carried on, we would still be working ten or twelve hours a day and would not have the production we have today. Several hon. members have spoken about the hours they had to work when younger. I was brought up on a farm and like any other farmer

i worked from sunrise to sunset, and sometimes before and after that. The first job I got when I went out to Vancouver was delivering milk. That was a seven day a week job, and I had to get up in the morning about two-thirty. Milkmen in Vancouver do not do that any more, which is a social improvement.
I think the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White) put his finger on a very important point, when he drew to our attention that the chartered banks of this country have a very valuable concession from the government in their bank charters. They provide banking service in the same way that railroads provide transportation service. The railroad workers have a five-day week, but that does not mean that all the railroads in Canada stop on Friday night. They carry on through Saturdays and Sundays just the same as the other days of the week.
I see no reason why the bank employees should not have a five-day week without the banks closing on Saturday mornings. They are open now only from nine until eleven, two hours. Surely they could continue to give that service and at the same time give their employees a five-day week. I want to tell the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) that if the five-day week is adopted by the banks it will not be as a result of collective bargaining between the bank employees and the bankers. It will come about when the management decides to put it into effect and the employees will not have anything to say about it. Today the bankers take good care to see that there is no bank employees' organization to carry on collective bargaining.
A great deal could be said on this question of the five-day week, but that is not the real issue involved. When there is less employment it will be far more difficult for industrial workers to maintain the five-day week than it is now. They have obtained the five-day week fairly easily because of the tight employment situation in the past ten years. It was not given to them as something socially desirable. I submit that the five-day week is a good thing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Saturdays.
James Sinclair: Perhaps I could clarify one or two points that have been raised by hon. members. The hon. member for Kamloops was the first to refer to the problem that would arise in country areas where farmers
Bills of Exchange Act
come in on Saturdays and are accustomed to do their banking business at that time. The banks are well aware of that and are just as anxious as any other business to provide proper service for their customers.
In the discussions between the bankers' association and the Department of Finance they indicated that as far as possible they would keep country banks open for purposes other than the Bills of Exchange Act, for the purpose of cashing cheques, making deposits and so on. A farmer could come in and talk to the bank manager about a loan, cash a cheque or make a deposit in his savings account. As has been pointed out by other speakers, the banks have already cut back their hours on Saturday morning.
The hon. member for Vancouver East has suggested that the banks follow the practice of other businesses and put their employees on a five-day week but keep open six days in the week. Certain difficulties arise in connection with that. It has been suggested that it should be possible to rotate employees in order to provide this type of service.
The hon. member for Middlesex West and others have mentioned workers who might draw their pay on Fridays might not be able to cash their cheques on Saturday. We had correspondence on this matter from teachers whom you would think would be the last to complain of anyone having a five-day week, as they have had a five-day week for many years. They were not complaining about that, but they were pointing out that those who teach in residential areas would have access to banks only on Saturdaysi. It has been suggested that the banks should investigate what is done in Detroit where they keep open from seven to nine o'clock in the evening but where they work a five-day week. They keep open in the evening for the purpose of cashing cheques and accepting deposits.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that every night or just one night a week?


James Sinclair: Just one night a week. The bankers are well aware of the problems which are going to arise with their customers. Despite what the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough has said, I would point out that the ten chartered banks are no monopoly in this country. That will be borne out by anyone who has watched two rival bank managers in a small town competing for business.


George Stanley White: In many small towns there is only the one branch.


James Sinclair: As has been pointed out, this is not a bill dealing with the five-day week. It is to amend the Bills of Exchange Act. It has been very interesting to have this
PROVINCIAL LlbRAR) vmrrr\t>iA a r>
Bills of Exchange Act exchange of opinions on the five-day week. It shows there is no unanimity of opinion in the house and, I would suggest even, in the C.C.F. party; because most of us will remember that only last week the hon. member for Moose Jaw was suggesting that a longer week than five days was desirable at this time in the building trades.
Then I should like to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa. First I can say that we were delighted to hear him speak. We members on the government side have a very high respect for him, and his great ability. Because of his position, he speaks very seldom and we believe, as does the hon. member for Kamloops, that he should speak more often. He suggested it would be good common sense for the banks to make provision for their farmer customers to be able to transact their business at a convenient hour. I agree. One point which perhaps has not been made clear about the bill is that it gives protection not only to the banks but also to customers of the banks against being expected to negotiate bills on Saturdays if the banks are closed.
The hon. member for Acadia raised the point that he did not think this was a desirable time to press for the five-day week. I think many people who are concerned about production and the causes of inflation can agree with that statement, but I should like to point out that this situation has been forced on bank managers. Whether the five-day week is or is not desirable at the present time, the fact remains that in the larger cities the banks are having extreme difficulty in securing adequate and competent help. As a consequence they have raised salaries. Anyone who compares bank salaries today with tnose of the pre-war period will be surprised to see the increase. However, there is the other point I mentioned earlier, namely that there is one category of employees who are not as much interested in the perhaps small difference in bank salaries compared with other clerical salaries as they are in having Saturdays off. I think most of us have noticed the increased dependence banks are placing on women to do their clerical work. I believe they have found, and I think we as customers have found, that they do the job very well, but most of these women do not enter into bank work as a career. Like other women they are looking forward to marriage, and I think some of them feel they are in a better position so far as marriage is concerned if they are off all day Saturday and Sunday as are most men in industry.
These are facts which have been drawn to my attention by the bank managers who are dealing with the problem. I give them in answer to the statement of the hon. member


for Acadia that this is not the time to encourage the five-day week. This country, and especially the Department of Finance, is interested and feels it is important that our banks have adequate and competent staffs, and the bank managers say that under present conditions they are having very great difficulty in obtaining them in the larger cities unless they have the right to institute the five-day week. I think I have covered the points raised by hon. members.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is an interesting proposition that has just been put forward by the parliamentary assistant that in order to secure a husband a girl who works in a bank needs Saturday morning as well as Saturday afternoon and every evening. However, perhaps something has been said which convinces him of that necessity. I wanted to ask him one question with respect to the section which is now being enacted, and having to do with subsection 3. It is provided at the end of that clause that the non-acceptance cr non-payment on Saturday of a cheque so presented does not entitle the person presenting it to treat the cheque as dishonoured by nonacceptance or non-payment. In other words, after first providing that the bill or note payable on demand cannot be presented on Saturday, the section then goes on to say that notwithstanding that fact if the bank is open it can be presented on Saturday.


James Sinclair: Only a cheque.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then it continues with the words to which I have just referred. Does the parliamentary assistant not think that some difficulty is going to arise there unless it is made clear that the only non-acceptance or non-paymenit on Saturday of a cheque presented for payment, which will not result in the cheque being treated as dishonoured, will be non-acceptance on account of it being Saturday? It seems to me that if a cheque presented on Saturday is not accepted because there are not sufficient funds in the account, that should be as much reason for treating it as dishonoured on Saturday as on any other day. Therefore I am wondering whether in order to make it clear some such words should not be included as "nonacceptance or non-payment on a Saturday of a cheque so presented, by reason only of anything in this section contained, does not entitle the person presenting it to treat the cheque as dishonoured". In other words I think it should be made clear that the normal reasons for rejecting a cheque, such as not sufficient funds and so on, which would justify its being treated immediately as dishonoured, will continue to apply on Saturday. Otherwise it seems to me you have ruled out those reasons for dishonouring on Saturday.


James Sinclair: The reason this exception was put forward at the request of the bankers was primarily so they could stay open and cash cheques. That is why they have singled out cheques as distinct from other instruments. Their objection to bills of exchange or promissory notes being accepted on Saturday is that they felt that in many cases they would have to inquire from the drawer or drawee as to whether they were valid, and the same is true with respect to some cheques. They feel that in some cases they would want to make inquiries from other banks or from the person who drew the cheque as to whether or not it was valid. With a small staff on Saturday morning this might be difficult. They would like to reserve to themselves the right to accept or not accept a cheque on Saturday morning without in any way prejudicing the position of the cheque when it is presented on the next business day, Monday. I think you can link this with paragraph (c) of subsection 2, which provides that failure to do any act or thing on a Saturday does not give rise to any rights.
The banks feel it is a very important section to them. In the few hours they are open on Saturday they want to do as much business as possible but they want to put it on the basis that they do not have to cash a cheque on Saturday if they are in doubt, and that the cheque is not dishonoured or not accepted because it may be presented on Monday. If there are not sufficient funds on Saturday it is very unlikely there will be sufficient on Monday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is true. I think the section is desirable and the subsection necessary. All I want to point out is that it seems to me it is going to have this effect. If my hon. friend goes into his bank on Saturday with a cheque drawn by somebody on that branch, present it for payment, and there are not sufficient funds in the drawer's account to pay the cheque the bank will say: "No, we will not accept the cheque", and the reason they give is that there are not sufficient funds in the account. My hon. friend will still not be able to treat that cheque as dishonoured simply because it is a Saturday. He will have to go back on Monday, present it again and be told that there are not sufficient funds. Then he can treat it as dishonoured. All I am asking is whether it would not be possible to provide that, if a cheque is dishonoured on Saturday for reasons which would otherwise on any other day result in its being dishonoured, those reasons shall entitle the person presenting it to treat it as dishonoured on Saturday without having to wait until Monday. That is my only suggestion, not
Bills of Exchange Act
that the banks be required to accept it without being able to make these other inquiries. If they can say immediately that the cheque is dishonoured because of insufficient funds, then I think the payee should be entitled to go right away to his lawyer or the drawer and say: "This cheque is no good; I am going to sue you unless you make it good". Under the section as it stands he will have to wait until Monday.


James Sinclair: If there are not sufficient funds on Saturday when the cheque is presented it is unlikely there will be on Monday, but the other point that suggests itself immediately is that if the banks begin picking and choosing types of non-payment on Saturday morning in those branches which are open, then other people with cheques drawn on branches that are not open have not the same opportunity to find out whether a cheque will be honoured or dishonoured. That is why these two sections have been linked together, first of all so that the cashing of cheques by banks on Saturday morning is what you might call a permissive matter. The bank does not have to accept them. The bank's refusal to accept them is neither dishonouring nor non-paying. They are capable of being presented on Monday morning, and so far as paragraph (c) is concerned, failure to do that act does not give rise to any rights on the part of the people connected with that cheque.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the parliamentary assistant say whether the banks have indicated to the government when they intend to put into effect the proposed five-day week? My question of course relates to the larger centres.


James Sinclair: I am not in a position to say that, but I do know that the banks have been very anxious to see this bill moved up to the top of the list. From that I would say they are quite anxious to see this bill become an act as quickly as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One other question, and I am pursuing the suggestion which I think was made first by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa. Was consideration given to drafting a bill which would permit the banks to close any day of the week rather than just Saturday as the bill is now drawn?


James Sinclair: The difficulty there is that we would have to set out in the Bills of Exchange Act that whatever other days the banks were closed were also non-juridical days, on which financial dealings on notes and bills could not be transacted. This goes far beyond the banks. If my hon. friend had a promissory note of mine it would be affected, as would also any private transaction.

Canadian Broadcasting Act It would raise doubt and confusion on every day in the week as to whether or not legal business could be transacted, as far as bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes were concerned. The present bill is regarded by the Department of Finance and the banks as the only possible practical one to permit the five-day week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If this bill is put through, do I take it that it means that while it permits the banks to close on Saturdays, it does not permit them to close some other day in lieu of Saturday?


James Sinclair: That is quite right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Alphonse Fournier: Now, by leave.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Next sitting.


Alphonse Fournier: Next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING ACT


James Joseph McCann: the second reading of Bill No. 17, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936.
He said: As I explained at the resolution stage, the main purpose of this bill is to give effect to recommendations of the Massey commission regarding broadcasting, that is recommendations involving legislation in the form of amendments to the Canadian Broadcasting Act.
The chief feature of the bill is the provision for new revenue arrangements for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in line with the recommendation of the commission. It provides for the payment to the corporation of a fixed sum of $6,250,000 each year for a period of five years. It is estimated that these payments, together with receipts from receiving set license fees and from commercial operations, will bring the annual revenues of the corporation to about the equivalent of one dollar per head of the population of Canada. This was the amount which in the opinion of the commission would be needed by the national broadcasting system to maintain its services and to carry out some necessary improvements in the five-year period.

It has been suggested by one hon. member that the payments should not be set now by statute for a five-year period, but should be voted annually by parliament. The chief argument for such an annual vote seemed to be that it would provide parliament each year with an opportunity to review the affairs of the C.B.C. I should like to say that I for one am quite in favour of frequent reviews by parliament of broadcasting matters and the affairs of the corporation. I think it is a good thing that every year, or every year that it sees fit, this house appoints a committee for this purpose. With the appointment of such committees there is ample opportunity for discussion by the whole house of C.B.C. activities and aims. But I believe there are two strong arguments against an annual vote of money for the C.B.C. The first, I think, was well put by the royal commission in its report when it said:
There are, however, serious objections to an annual grant to be voted by parliament. Although other essential government services depend on an annual vote, it is so important to keep the national radio free from the possibility of political influence that its income should not depend annually on direct action by the government of the day.
An important matter of principle is involved here, one with which I thought hon. members on the opposite side of the house would agree. They have stated they are in agreement with us on insistence that the activities of the C.B.C. should not come under the direct influence of the government of the day. Under the provisions of the bill before the house there would be no question of the government having an influence on the broadcasting of the C.B.C. through power of proposing votes of money for operating purposes each year. As I say, however, I believe that, although the payments to the corporation from public funds will not be voted annually, parliament will still 'have plenty of opportunity to examine the affairs of the corporation which is directly responsible to it, and should do so.
The second reason for setting the fixed sum for a period of five'years is that it will enable the corporation to make proper plans on a reasonable long term basis. When the corporation was set up by parliament it was with the idea that it should manage its affairs on a businesslike basis, following as closely as possible the methods of private operation, as is necessary in the field of broadcasting. To operate in a businesslike way the corporation needs to be able to make a good estimate of its income ahead of time, and then plan its activities and manage its affairs accordingly. I do not think broadcasting is the kind of activity for which estimates of funds can be worked out each year in the same way as

they are for government departments. In broadcasting, particularly in Canada, there are and probably always will be many demands from different sections of the public for more of something, particularly in the program field where there are many different opinions about what expenditures are necessary. It seems to me the sensible thing for parliament to do is to tell the corporation what are its sources of revenue for five years, setting a reasonable amount in relation to the economy of the country. Then it is the responsibility of the corporation to spend that money to the greatest possible advantage, subject always to a review by parliament.
The bill also lays down legal provisions regarding the right of notice for broadcasters and the right of hearing by the board of governors on matters directly affecting them. In addition there is laid down a right of appeal by private stations to the Exchequer Court of Canada on questions of law against suspension orders by the corporation. There is, however, no change in the general coordinating position of the C.B.C.
I have been very interested in some speeches on broadcasting by members of the Progressive Conservative party in recent years, and sometimes a little entertained by them. I have been glad to hear these speakers take pride in the national broadcasting system of Canada, and pride in the part the Conservative government had in setting up the system originally. Sometimes, however, they seem to forget that when the system was first set up under their government it had the same and even greater co-ordinating powers over all broadcasting in the country than it has at present. For years they seemed to agree with us and other parties on the principle of control being vested in one single body responsible to parliament.
Proposals for a separate regulating body have been promoted vigorously in the last few years by some, though not all, of the private stations. In view of the many and often conflicting proposals advanced, this government thought it wise to have the whole matter studied thoroughly by an impartial body to ascertain if possibly changed conditions had made a different system of control desirable. This whole question was very carefully studied by the Massey commission, which was quite impartial in its approach to the question and examined it in relation to the broadcasting needs of this country in a very thorough way. I should like to read some of the observations of the commission on this matter. At page 285 of its report,
Canadian Broadcasting Act after referring to the variety of proposals for a new separate control body, the commission says:
We have considered these proposals and find that they would either divide and destroy, or merely duplicate the present system of national control. Legislation to set up a separate regulatory body would alter the present national system and would result in two independent groups of radio broadcasting stations, one public and one private. The C.B.C. would no longer have the control over all clear channels considered necessary to ensure national coverage. This matter might be arranged but the C.B.C. would still lose the outlets through private stations which are equally necessary for national coverage under existing conditions. Moreover. if the two groups of stations were to be considered as on a parity it would be impossible to refuse network privileges to private broadcasters, with consequences which we shall mention later. A completely separate body treating public and private radio broadcasting with judicial impartiality could not fail to destroy the present system upon which we depend for national coverage with national programs.
But, it may be argued, such a body would have the power to improve but not to destroy. It could concern itself with the programs of public and of private stations and strive for the improvement of both in the public interest. The theory may sound plausible, but we doubt whether it would be effective in practice.
And further down on page 286:
The public quite properly requires a higher standard for public than for private programs. But as the completely separate regulatory body contemplated must treat all alike, its activities might well have the effect of reconciling the C.B.C. to relatively low commercial standards rather than of raising the programs of both the C.B.C. and of private stations to a higher level.
It is conceivable that some who might favour a separate regulatory body assume that such an authority would have the duty of securing the necessary channels and sufficient outlets for national sustaining programs. Such an arrangement would be completely inconsistent with the notion of a separate regulatory body holding the balance between public and private stations. The regulatory power would then become merely an agent for the C.B.C. in securing coverage for national programs. It would, in fact, parallel in power and responsibility the present board of governors of the C.B.C.
We must return then to the statement that a new regulatory body would either destroy or duplicate the present national system of control. If the national system were not to be destroyed, a separate body could do only what the present board of governors is supposed to do. If it did not mark the end of the national system it could not possibly be "the separate and completely impartial body not connected in any way with the C.B.C." which the C.A.B. has requested.
In its first formal recommendation on broadcasting, the commission goes on to state that the present system of control of broadcasting in Canada should be continued. Mr. Speaker, I think these findings of the commission are sound. I should think they would be convincing to anyone who studied and thought about the realities of broadcasting in Canada. It is completely illogical to try to
1206	HOUSE OF
Canadian Broadcasting Act compare railroad transportation and broadcasting in this country. The two are entirely different. This government accepts the findings of the royal commission on the control of broadcasting in Canada as sound and sensible, and in the best interests of the Canadian people.


George Alexander Drew: May I raise one question which, if the minister does not feel it is proper to answer at this point, he could so indicate. It does seem to me that no distinction has been drawn which would show why the government thinks it is appropriate to control air channels for aircraft, both public and private, and not for radio. Has the government considered that point?


James Joseph McCann: For aircraft?


George Alexander Drew: Yes. A great deal of the argument has been based on the theory that an allocation of air channels would be involved in connection with radio, which in some ways suggests reasons why 'there could not be an independent board. I would point out that an independent board has been set up to control air travel in this country, allocating air channels without suggesting there is any vested interest in those air channels.


James Joseph McCann: The difference is that air channels for broadcasting are allocated on an international basis by- agreement between the several countries of this western hemisphere.


George Alexander Drew: So are the air routes, where they are international.


James Joseph McCann: Most of the air routes to which the hon. member has been referring are our own air routes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is 6.15.


James Joseph McCann: I shall only be a moment in putting the rest of this on the record.
There have also been some suggestions from the other side of the house about allowing private stations to form and join networks. This, of course, is tied in with the idea of a separate regulatory body. Once again I should like to quote from the commission report. On page 288, it says:
There are, however, two other important factors to be considered. One is that the formation of networks would involve the withdrawal of local stations as outlets for national programs and would therefore (as we have just stated in another connection) disrupt the present system of national coverage. The second is that the formation of private-station networks would bring them into commercial competition with the C.B.C. in the national field with the same consequences as private broadcasters have found so objectionable in the local field.
The general effect of private network broadcasting would, we believe, be the same as that of a separate regulatory body. It would destroy the national system.


Some of the hon. members opposite appear to be in a great hurry to see some private operators get television broadcasting licences. It seems to me there are things that are much more important than the establishment of monopoly positions on television channels by private interests, from which they might hope to make a good deal of money in the future. Far more important to this country is the building up of a television broadcasting system which will help to link the country together in a new way; which will use a large amount of Canadian talent; and which, while bringing in some material from outside the country, will be essentially a Canadian operation carried on in the national interests. Into this system I expect later it will be possible to fit private operations coordinated under the over-all system serving community interests, and also acting as outlets for national program service. This is the recommendation of the royal commission, and this seems to me the sensible way in which television should develop in Canada in the general public interest.
We are proposing that this bill be referred to the special committee on broadcasting. The committee will be able to study in detail the main provisions of the bill, and also the minor amendments to the Canadian Broadcasting Act which are proposed for purposes of clarification and to meet changed conditions.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, when the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew) adjourned the debate at 6.15, I had hoped that he would enlarge somewhat on the remarks he made at a previous stage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I did not understand that the leader of the official opposition adjourned the debate. As he stood, I called it 6.15. There was no adjournment of the debate at 6.15.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Then I am under a misapprehension, Mr. Speaker, because I thought the leader of the opposition had the floor and was going to claim it when the house resumed. That is neither here nor there, however, for I intend now to discuss Bill No. 17 and certain matters which have arisen in the course of the debate.
Let me say right away that we in this group are in favour of the bill and that we of

course are in favour of its referral to a committee. It is only right that the membership of the board of governors should be increased by two, because that increase should mean a wider geographical representation on the board. I think it might be worth while to consider the advisability of having an amendment to the act to the effect that members of the board of governors should be Canadians. There can, of course, be no question at all that those who are appointed are Canadians; but it might be just as well to have that provision written into legislation. It might be advisable also to have some legislation to the effect that any individual in this country who owns or controls a radio station should be a Canadian citizen. I would deplore it if a vehicle for the dissemination of information or opinion such as radio were to get into the hands of those who are not Canadians. Those are two matters which the committee might perhaps consider.
As to the legislation, I think it is only proper that greater protection should be given to private stations. Despite the fact that on many occasions I have opposed the private owners, nevertheless I feel that they should have recourse to some superior court should they feel that their interests are imperilled. Allowance has been made for that recourse in this legislation.
We of course welcome most heartily the suggestion, which was contained in the Massey report, that the annual income of the C.BC. should be roughly equivalent to $1 per annum per head of the Canadian population. In this way many of the financial worries which beset those who are responsible for the C.B.C. will disappear, at least for the time being, and they will now be able to do the intelligent programming which we in Canada expect from them. I think the minister suggested this afternoon that if programs were to be prepared adequately one had to think in terms not of days or weeks ahead but indeed in terms of months ahead. When the C.B.C. was running a deficit continually, it was then obviously not in a position to calculate what might happen six months ahead. It is, however, possible that the amount of money which is now going to be at the disposal of the C.B.C. might be inadequate. It would be inadequate on this basis. If the parliament of Canada were to decide that there should be a private radio network, the C.B.C. would find this amount quite inadequate, for it is dependent upon private outlets to sustain its chain of communications; and since these would be barred to it, the C.B.C. would be forced into the position of having to build additional outlets
Canadian Broadcasting Act all across this country. That is, however, a contingency which I do not think will arise.
Here I should like to comment upon a statement by the leader of the opposition as to what he considered was one of the basic rights of democracy, namely, that the private stations should have a network. I do not concede it to be a basic right of democracy that the private radio stations should have a network of their own. It is true that the leader of the opposition wanted this network so there should be adequate discussion of public affairs. But I think there is that adequate discussion today through the courtesy of both the C.B.C. and the private stations. However, the principal question which is before the house is one that has continually vexed us in the past; and I think I can put it in no better words than those used in the report of the British broadcasting committee which was published this year. In paragraph 544 it states:
Broadcasting is the most pervasive, and therefore one of the most powerful of agents for influencing men's thoughts and actions, for giving them a picture, true or false, of their fellows and of the world in which they live, for appealing to their intellect, their emotions and their appetites, for filling their minds with beauty or ugliness, ideas or idleness, laughter or terror, love or hate. How can mankind ensure that this great power is exercised at all times for good rather than evil?
As I say, Mr. Speaker, that question has perplexed others wherever there is democratic control over radio, as indeed it has perplexed us in the past. From debates which have taken place, however, it appears that there is in parliament general agreement that parliament has the exclusive responsibility over broadcasting in Canada. I use the word "exclusive" advisedly, because it was used by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) last week; and I agree with him in this regard. But if parliament is to have exclusive responsibility, then obviously parliament must have effective control, and that control is exercised through the medium of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
It is at this point that we see the differences of opinion which exist. There is a decided quarrel among some of us-in good nature, I hope-as to how the C.B.C. should exercise that control. We heard again last week the arguments which have been raised time after time. None of them is new; all of them are old, and most of them are becoming very monotonous. Every time a radio committee has been set up it has justified the situation which exists in connection with radio in this country. The Massey report justified the position and the actions of the Canadian Broadcasting Commission. One would hope that those who are opposed to the C.B.C. having

Canadian Broadcasting Act this power which, theoretically, they wish to give it, might realize that and try some more constructive approach. But we are told all the time that the C.B.C. is curbing the freedom of the private operators, and that the C.B.C. is guilty of unfair competition. These canards have been exposed in the past, and I intend to deal with them only for a moment or so. Those who are interested in radio realize full well that the members of the Aird commission stated that there should be no private stations in this country, and that they should be owned by whatever creature of government was set up for radio purposes. That of course has not happened.
In those days there was possibly a handful of private radio stations. Today there are under C.B.C. control 134 private radio stations, each and every one of which has been recommended by the C.B.C. I submit that is not a bad record for a corporation which is curbing competition. That is not a bad record for a corporation which is limiting freedom. Indeed, far from being totalitarian, as we are told the C.B.C. is, it has been spawning those very groups some of which have become its most deadly enemies.
We are told that the C.B.C. indulges in or is guilty of unfair competition. But here there is a lack of knowledge, surely, of the purposes of radio in this country; because private radio is not competitive with the C.B.C. Private radio is not a rival of the C.B.C. Private radio is supplementary to the C.B.C., and the owners of private radio must not be allowed to forget that. Private radio stations have a most important part to play in communities in this country; the part they play is in rounding out the federal picture of radio broadcasting in Canada.
Now, in connection with this allegation on the part of some, which I say is invalid, as to competition between the C.B.C. and private radio stations, I should like to refer to the British broadcasting committee's report, paragraph 163. This is what the B.B.C. has to say about competition; and let me add that the committee as a whole did not agree with it. Nevertheless those who made a minority report did. Discussing the purposes, cultural aims, range and general sense of responsibility of the broadcasting service as a whole, the B.B.C. had this to say:
Under any system of competitive broadcasting all these things would be at the mercy of Gresham's law. For, at the present stage of the nation's general educational progress, it operates as remorselessly in broadcasting as ever it did in currency. The good, in the long run, will inescapably be driven out by the bad.
That is the position of many in the United Kingdom who agree, as I do, that the government agency should have exclusive power

over radio. It is not the duty, as I see it, of the C.B.C. to fight and compete for listeners. It is the duty and the responsibility of the C.B.C. to serve the people of Canada to the best of its ability. In other words, radio broadcasting as it was envisaged by those who set it up is a service and not an industry. And, following upon that, the channels over which radio is disseminated in Canada belong to the people of Canada. Those who are supporters of private radio would imply that private stations have some prescriptive right to these channels. Such is not and must not be allowed to be the case. They have no inherent right to these channels whatsoever.
The other day the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) suggested that the overriding policy of the C.B.C. is to give the people what they ought to have, not what they want. He did not state that dogmatically; there were reservations in his statement. Nevertheless that was the inference I took from his remarks. But who can say that he or she knows what the people ought to have? I would say the very last agency to say that would be the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Its duty is to try to give everybody something of what they want. There are those who prefer cowboy music to chamber music; there are those who prefer educational programs to, let us say, Wayne and Shuster. Each and every community in Canada is given at least something of what it desires on the nationally owned radio.
I should like to quote from a book by Charles Siepmann, who is professor of education at New York university. He has some rather interesting things to say about this procedure of giving people what they want. Discussing a speech made by Mr. Frank Stanton to the institute of radio engineers, Siepmann says:
It is, indeed, the glory of a democratic society that it not merely tolerates but encourages difference, that its concern is with the full flowering of diverse individuality, not of conformity and massmindedness. "Giving the majority of the people what they want," which Mr. Stanton later dignifies as "cultural democracy," is that form of tyranny which, as it either excludes or scouts the interests of minorities, is (as we claimed in our discussion of free speech) the breeding ground of intolerance and the ultimate death knell of democracy.
And later he says:
Broadcasters and telecasters, however, are retailers of a great variety of goods.
This is in the United States.
Mr. Stanton's theory of retailing makes as much sense as if a large department store were to clear its shelves of all commodities except the best-selling lines. This, presumably, would be economic democracy.
Now the question arises: What service should the C.B.C. give? The leader of the

official opposition has expressed his views in this respect at page 894 of Hansard. He believes it to be the duty of the C.B.C. to provide mainly cultural, educational and historical features. That is something with which I disagree entirely. If the C.B.C. were to adhere strictly to that concept, then we would find that its programs were hopelessly circumscribed. Instead I maintain that the duty of the C.B.C. is to entertain, to inform, to instruct and, above all, to see that every legitimate point of view is expressed and that every reasonable taste, also, has some expression on the air. Here I should like to quote again from the minority report of the report of the British broadcasting committee where it says:
The duty of the broadcasting authority is not to please the greatest possible number of listeners but to keep open the channel for communication ol ideas of all kinds, popular and unpopular.
That does not receive unanimous support in this house, I am afraid. The other day the hon. member for Peace River spoke about red and pink propaganda on the C.B.C. We have heard this every year, yet when it comes down to the point we cannot get the charge documented at any time. I remember last year in the radio committee when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) said there were too many leftists in the C.B.C. When he was challenged to name them he could think of only two out of the many commentators who spoke over that network. I am quite certain that if he had a little more time he might have thought of three, but the fact remains that those who were alleged to be tinged with red and pink propaganda numbered only two. It was noticeable that when the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), and I repeat this, made this charge he did not mention any names.


John Horne Blackmore: He could have done so very easily.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: If there are
those who believe there are red and pink propagandists on the C.B.C. they should get up and mention them.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the hon. member point to a single Social Crediter on the C.B.C.?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Nobody would accuse the Social Crediters of being red or pink.


John Horne Blackmore: They have the right to express their opinions.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: The hon. member knows as well as I that under the present set-up the Social Credit party is allowed a certain amount of free time on the C.B.C., as are the other parties.
Canadian Broadcasting Act


John Horne Blackmore: I am talking about
membership on the board of the C.B.C.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I do not
think one's political views are any criterion for membership on the board of the C.B.C. I have no idea what the political beliefs of the members of the board are. I am not interested in them. I want to see the most competent people we have in Canada on the board regardless of their political beliefs.


John Horne Blackmore: I want to see every type of idea put forward with the same amount of emphasis.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I would be delighted to see every idea in Canada put forward with emphasis. Perhaps the hon. member will permit me to carry on with my speech.	In some quarters the C.B.C. is
blamed for not permitting television to appear in Canada, of course run by the private stations. We are told by these same people that it is essential that radio be kept distinctly Canadian in its outlook and content, and the same must apply to television. Last December I was in Vancouver and visited a good friend of mine; at least I hope he is. This man is a private radio station operator. He was giving me the usual hymn of hate of the private broadcasters against the C.B.C. for not permitting television. I put this proposition up to him. I asked him whether he could afford to produce the programs which would be necessary if he were given the right to go ahead with television, and he admitted that he could not. I asked him where he would hope to get the programs and he said, "We will pipe them in from the United States". Of course that is what the private interests are prepared to do despite all this talk about Canadian content in programs. In connection with that I might again quote Mr. Siepmann:
The expressed intentions of advertisers are confusingly varied. They range from the gay and daring to the sober and moralistic. With reference to sex appeal, Mr. Griffin (vice-president and group copy head, J. Walter Thompson Co.) gave as a good general rule to try to get away with as much as you can.
We do not want that sort of radio or that sort of television in this country. I maintain that the C.B.C. was correct in not permitting private stations to go ahead and fill the Canadian air with United States programs. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) suggested earlier that there was still a great difference of opinion among hon. members of this house. As a matter of fact, when you reduce the differences that exist to naked reality you can see that they amount to nothing more or less than the decision as to who is going to control the minds of men. That is the fight which is
1210	HOUSE OF
Canadian Broadcasting Act going on between the authoritarian concept of life and the democratic concept of life, between those who believe that the individual must be subservient to some elite and those like myself who believe that the inherent dignity of man can find expression only in freedom under law. This difference of opinion seems to be clearly expressed by Mr. George Chandler in a mimeographed statement entitled "The Case for Private Broadcasting". Mr. Chandler states that those who control communications control the thoughts of the people. That is perfectly true. He then goes on to say:
The Massey commission ignores the sound commercial fact that is understood by people in the commercial world that the soundest method that business can use to expand its market is to develop and encourage widespread unity of thought.
What is wanted by the commercial broadcasters is unity of thought, but unity of thought for what? Unity of thought for whom? It was de Tocqueville who said that the greatest threat to democracy is the pressure for conformity. That pressure is on today in no mean way. The strongest attack is being made against the sort of diversity which should be the pride and glory of any democracy. There is nothing but a desire to conform, a desire for orthodoxy. There is the fear now that opinions which challenge our basic values as individuals present a threat to social stability. There is legitimacy for that fear. Undoubtedly it is so. But the answer to that fear is not what has been expressed by so many, that is, suppression. So often today we find that where men differ radically one from the other, one is called a communist or an atheist or anti-Christian or any of these cliches which we use today to destroy men. The answer for those with whom we disagree is not suppression, for that is the tactic of totalitarianism. The answer is reasoned and reasonable argument.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I would say that the suppression of thought and the suppression of ideas and free speech offers a far greater threat to the stability of the social order than the diversity of opinion in which I believe. I should like to quote now a statement which I am sure is well known to many hon. members. It was enunciated by John Milton in Areopagitica. It is still a statement of a vital and basic principle. I do not mean to say that I agree with Milton entirely because there are many things he said with which I disagree and indeed resent. But I agree on this issue when he states:
Censoring of thought implies "grace of infallibility and incorruptibleness" in the censors.
"It hinders and retards the importation of our richest merchandise, truth."


If it came to prohibiting, there is not aught more likely to be prohibited than truth itself, whose first appearance to our eyes, bleared and dimmed with prejudice and custom, is more unsightly and implausible than many errors.
That statement is absolutely valid for today. Let me put it in another way. This is what Thomas Jefferson had to say:
For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead nor to tolerate error so long as reason is left to combat it.
Those are the words of a civilized man; those are the words of a man who realized that if a belief has the validity of truth, then it is imperishable. False ideas cannot prevail against it. The answer today of so many people is to suppress those things with which they do not agree rather than put up a reasonable argument.
I can only conclude that those who desire suppression have very little faith in the reasonableness or the capacity to reason of the Canadian people. If we do not rely upon the ultimate good common sense of the people, then I do not think we have any right to call ourselves democrats. Indeed what we should insist upon is the right of the individual to use his own judgment in these matters. But that right cannot be exercised by minds which are atrophied by prohibition of thought or, what is just as bad, by unity of thought. I said earlier that freedom is under attack as it is bound to be under attack where the answer to opposing views which we dislike is suppression. It reminds me of what the poet Campbell said:
Hope, for a season, bade the world farewell,
And freedom shrieked as Kosciusko fell!
But freedom is not in a position today where it can shriek. After all, it is very difficult to shriek when one is being slowly strangled. We see the unhappy picture to the south of us where men are being attacked and reputations are being wrecked by a disease which I will call McCarthyism. The menace lies not in the attacks on these men but in there being no protest against that iniquity. Every time I have gone to the United States and seen what has happened there I have been proud to say that sort of thing cannot happen here, that it has no place in Canada; but I am not sure I am right, because I have heard men attacked in this house within the last few days for holding views which have been described as poisonous, atheistic, and blasphemous. Why? If those who used those terms had listened to the broadcasts which they disliked so much they would have realized men use a moral basis for hostility, and in this case the moral basis of course is religion and democracy.

Whenever we are hard put to it we use great moral causes to justify our ends, but what sort of democracy justifies the use of suppression? What sort of religion is it? I am unable to say, but I doubt if it is one that I am prepared to accept. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) told us that there was blasphemy on the Canadian air. He told us it was much worse because it was an insidious type of blasphemy which sometimes is not detected for what it really is. I feel we should congratulate him. He at least could see it even if nobody else could. But his statement would have been much stronger if he had named those who were responsible for the blasphemy. Surely it was an amazing omission to forget to name them, to forget to tell us. Unhappily he amongst others apparently craves for orthodoxy. There must be no adventuresome thinking. Above all, speakers must be safe.
What he is really asking for is the stultification of democracy. I should like to quote from Dr. J. H. Newman's "Essays, Critical and Historical". He said:
A man who can set down, half a dozen general propositions, which escape from destroying one another only by being diluted into truisms, who can hold the balance between opposites so skilfully as to do without fulcrum or beam, who never enunciates a truth without guarding himself from being supposed to exclude the contradictory . . . this is your safe man.
I suspect that is the sort of man who would broadcast on the private radio stations, because he would say nothing and everybody would feel completely and absolutely safe. I regret very much that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) has been called away from the house on business. I was going to devote some little time to him but in his absence I shall have to modify my remarks. At least the hon. member for Peace River named names. He named one, Dr. Brock Chisholm, who he said has a poisonous mind. A Liberal member said the other night in the house that atheism was being preached over the C.B.C. When I asked him afterwards who was responsible he said it was Dr. Brock Chisholm and Dr. Ewen Cameron.
At least we have names and we have the scripts of what these men said over the C.B.C. They said more or less what is being taught in the universities and colleges of Canada today. Why should; not the ordinary person have the advantage of that teaching? Now let us consider this poison of which Dr. Brock Chisholm is accused. He said-and this seems to be his philosophy-
When we can live together in understanding and tolerance and compassion and in the hope that we may be able, enough of us, to love our neighbour, whatever his race, religion, colour of skin, ideology
Canadian Broadcasting Act or economic or social group-when we can do that, we shall no longer be found in the ranks of man's last enemy-himself. Instead we shall become friends of, and assets to, mankind.
Yet the hon. member for Peace River states at page 888 of Hansard by way of condemnation:
How in the world can people safeguard the faith, wholesomeness of mind and thoughts of their boys and girls if they are going to be subjected day after day to voices over the radio that have not the slightest conviction, the slightest evidence of faith, loyalty or patriotism in them . . .


John Horne Blackmore: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I doubt if I have time. Ask me afterwards. Let us consider Dr. Chisholm's statement again. He said:
When we can live together in understanding and tolerance and compassion-
Is that poison?
-and in the hope that we may be able, enough of us, to love our neighbour-
Is that treason?
-whatever his race, religion, colour of skin . . .
Is that disloyalty?
These are the things which Brock Chisholm believes. These are things which I am certain he spoke of with conviction.


John Horne Blackmore: Is that what the member for Peace River (Mr. Low) had in mind?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: He mentioned Brock Chisholm and said his broadcasts were poisonous. Therefore I can only assume that is what he had in mind. If you prefer, I can take one of the broadcasts of Bertrand Russell. Let me ask you if these are the words of a man who speaks without faith and without conviction when he says:
I cannot believe that what is dark and dreadful and destructive in the souls of men is essential to the production of great works of imagination. I believe, on the contrary, that it lies within the power of man to create edifices of shining splendor from which the glory and greatness of which human thought and feeling are capable shall spread a light unmixed with darkness, filling men's hearts with joy, and their thoughts with clarity. Such a world is possible.
Who is there to disagree with him? Who is there to say this is a man without faith, conviction or loyalty? I remember hearing the hon. member for Peace River in a broadcast a few years ago, and I should like to quote from the context of his remarks made on December 18, 1946, on the program, "The Nation's Business". He said:
Do you know that the same group of international gangsters who are today scheming for world revolution are the same people who promoted the world war? Do you know that these same men promoted and financed the Russian revolution? Are you aware that these arch-criminals were

Canadian Broadcasting Act
responsible for the economic chaos and suffering of the hungry thirties, for financing Hitler to power, for promoting world war II with its tragic carnage? Do you know that there is a close tie-up between international communism, international finance and international political Zionism?
These are the views of the member for Peace River. I have no doubt they were spoken with conviction, but he is convinced of things which I believe to be wrong. He has faiths and beliefs which I cannot accept; and he is loyal to ideas which I abhor and scorn. I would say indeed that the ideas enunciated in that broadcast were dangerously subversive, that they approached something close to racial hatred. Yet I will insist that the hon. member for Peace River had the right to say those things because I rely upon the common sense of the people of Canada to sift the dross from that which is good and decent. Therefore I am not prepared to join with those who will make an organized although insidious attack on freedom.
All I want to do is remind the house that parliament is still the guardian of the rights of the people. Parliament is still the final custodian of freedom, and in a country such as Canada in which every group is a minority, parliament has a special responsibility. That being so, I would like to commend to the house a quotation to be found in the report of the British broadcasting committee of 1949, in the brief of Mr. Geoffrey Crowther and Sir Robert Watson-Watt:
The only ultimate safeguard of liberty lies in diversity. The report which your committee will make will be a crucial stage in the resuscitation, or in the destruction, of the free society.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up any further time of the house in this debate, but the speech that has been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) should be answered. I do not believe it should be just left in the air; but I feel that it could be better answered after the committee has discussed the bill, and had the opportunity of bringing out certain facts respecting the operation of the C.B.C. Therefore I will reserve what I might have to say on this matter until after the committee has reported and the bill has come back to the house.
In passing, I will say that the hon. member has attempted to take up a good deal of time in suggesting, if not directly, then by inference that there are people in the house who are desirous of suppressing freedom of speech. That is absolutely incorrect. No one in this group, no one in this house, has any desire to suppress freedom of speech. What we do desire is that whatever goes out over the air

by way of propaganda-I use the word in its best sense, for after all it is propaganda- should be answered. Nobody speaks over the air unless he has some information te divulge, or unless he is desirous of influencing people. There would be no other purpose. Therefore I use the word propaganda in its best sense. All we say is that when a speech goes out over the air an opportunity should be given for those views to be answered. We do not believe in suppression, and the hon. member cannot get away with that. We believe that all have a right to speak. We do not believe that the taxpayers' money should be used to propagate any idea that cannot be answered in the same way. That is our position; and that cannot be done in the limited time available and with the limited air channels used on the national networks.
We have no objection to men going out to the vacant lot, if they want to, and blowing their heads off with the sound of their own voices. We have no objection to men renting halls. We believe in the freedom of assembly. Let them speak to those who want to hear them. We have no objection to men gathering people around them, if they have something they think is good for people to listen to. But when it comes to putting millions of dollars of taxpayers' money into a radio corporation, whose time and whose channels are limited for people who may want to answer that which goes over the air, that is where we have some argument.
As I said, I am speaking now purely extemporaneously. I will have something more to say on this matter after the committee has done its work and the bill is reported.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on radio broadcasting.


Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of Bill No. 23, to amend the Government Annuities Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the parliamentary assistant answers to any questions that were asked at an earlier stage that he could give the house at this time?


Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: As I had occasion to mention during the debate on the resolution, it is our intention immediately after second reading of the bill to move that it be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations. Since hon. members who

have taken part in the discussion of the resolution are members of the industrial relations committee I would think they would And it more convenient and more interesting to place their questions before the officials who will appear before the industrial relations committee, and have them discuss them in a more thorough way. Of course we would like this reference to the committee to take place as quickly as possible, and to leave all possible latitude to the committee to inquire into the administration of the Government Annuities Act and the nature and purport of the amendments which are being offered to the bill.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in his opening remarks on November 15, state that each of the changes proposed in the Government Annuities Act is acceptable and desirable. Other hon. members who took part in the debate held the same view. Far from objection, there is entire approval of each of the amendments which are brought to the attention of this house.
My hon. friend who just invited me to make a statement at this stage spent most of his time the other day on two matters which I suggest are not relevant to the discussion on second reading, namely mortality tables and interest rates, since these two matters are under the direct and exclusive authority of the governor in council. I do not think there was any other point raised by my hon. friend in the last debate on this matter.
As to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), I understand-I had occasion to have this confirmed later-that she is agreeable to letting these questions stand until the bill has reached the committee stage. With this I conclude, Mr. Speaker, inviting hon. members to restrain their remarks so this bill can be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations as quickly as possible in order that the amendments can be voted on and approved at this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cote) is quite correct in stating that at an earlier stage in this debate I indicated that each of the changes forecast in this legislation is acceptable and desirable. He knows, too, that I approve the suggestion that this bill be referred to and studied by a committee of this house. Although I do approve that suggestion, frankly I wonder when another committee is going to find time to meet during the course of this session, and how it is going to be possible for the officials of this house to provide the necessary staff for another committee. Hon. members
Government Annuities Act are aware of the fact that so many committees are meeting now they are competing with each other for time and assistance. However, I do hope it may be possible for us to deal with this bill in committee before the session ends.


Alphonse Fournier: This was a request by the opposition, you know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) happen to remember when the opposition requested that?


Alphonse Fournier: I could not give the exact date, but my information is that the opposition desired to have a serious study of this bill in committee, and we agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I just wondered whether the minister remembered that that request was made in June of 1948.


Alphonse Fournier: No, it was requested at this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of course the request was probably renewed this session.


Alphonse Fournier: We never forget a request from the opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is good that the Minister of Public Works is in such a genial mood. He realizes that what he is doing is inviting us to make more requests, although we may have to wait three or four years-


Alphonse Fournier: You can make them easily, without invitation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right, and we are both persistent and patient. The parliamentary assistant has also indicated that most, if not all, of those of us who took part in the debate during the resolution stage are members of the industrial relations committee to which this bill will be referred, so we shall have an opportunity in that committee to discuss the various questions that were raised when the debate was in progress on Thursday of last week. Nevertheless I do feel that before the house is asked to give second reading, which involves giving approval to the principle of the bill, we should have had a more complete statement answering some of the questions that were put to the government at the resolution stage. I want to make it quite clear that in saying this I am not offering any criticism whatever of the hon. member for Verdun-La Salle (Mr. Cote). After all, a parliamentary assistant is placed in a difficult position. He may have all the information, but he cannot really speak for the government. I do feel that this bill should have been brought on at a time when the minister could have made a statement answering some of the questions that were put to
1214	HOUSE OF
Government Annuities Act the government the other day. Even though from this side of the house we have indicated general approval of the changes proposed by this bill, I believe the house is entitled to that information before giving approval to the principle of the bill, which is what happens when it receives second reading.
The parliamentary assistant tried to make one other point. He suggested that some of the things we were discussing the other day during the resolution stage were not relevant to this bill. In particular he referred to my discussion of the interest rate and the mortality rates, and suggested that those are matters which are determined by the governor in council. May I point out to him that the authority to determine those matters by order in council is provided in the legislation. As a matter of fact the bill now before us has a section which confers that authority, and it is one of the sections that has been re-drafted in this amending legislation. I submit, therefore, that when parliament is being asked to give the governor in council authority to fix the interest rate and to determine the mortality tables, surely at such a time we have a right to discuss that phase of the matter. Nevertheless I do not propose to go into it at any length tonight, because I did so on Thursday of last week when we were at the resolution stage. But I hope what the parliamentary assistant has just said is not a suggestion that when we get into the industrial relations committee we shall be denied the right to discuss that phase of the matter. As I said the other day I feel that, acceptable as are all the changes proposed in this bill, the most important change required with respect to government annuities is being overlooked, namely to put them back on the same basis they were on prior to the order in council of April, 1948.
As I said the other day, the raising of the amount of annuity a person can purchase to $200 a month is not a great deal of help to many Canadians. Most Canadians have a real job trying to buy an annuity of any kind. What is important is lowering the cost of these annuities', particularly in the lower brackets. I certainly hope that we shall have the right to discuss that phase of the matter with the officials or with the Minister of Labour, when .the bill comes before the industrial relations committee.
Among the questions that were asked the other day was one which I had hoped would be answered by a statement at this time, namely a question as to the extent to which existing contracts could be amended after the passing of this legislation, in keeping with the provisions that will be enacted when this


bill becomes law. We know, for example, that as the law now stands the maximum anyone can purchase is $1,200 a year. It will be $2,400 a year after this bill is passed. We know, too, that there are new types of contracts that can be purchased after this bill becomes law. I asked in particular whether people holding contracts at the present time would be able to have them altered along these lines.. The parliamentary assistant drew my attention to the fact that the bill would provide authority to the Minister of Labour to amend existing contracts, so I was interested in discovering that there is such a section in the bill. We are on second reading, Mr. Speaker, which means that one is not supposed to refer to the sections of a bill, but since we are not now going into committee of the whole on this bill I might be permitted half a minute to draw attention to the fact that the new section 6 of the bill will provide for variations to be made in existing contracts. But that authority is subject to certain other sections of the bill, namely sections 4, 7 and 8.
I find as I read section 8 it suggests that the total amount of annuities to be paid people who had contracts previously cannot exceed the maximum amount that might have been paid under this act or under those contracts before .the commencement of this subsection. From my reading of that subsection it seems to limit the right of the Minister of Labour to amend existing contracts so as to bring them up to the new maximum provided in this amending bill. As I have already said, there are other features of the problem that I regard as being much more important than this; but since this change is being made-and it is being made because of the increased cost of living and the decreased-value of the dollar
__it seems to me that it should be made
available not only to those who purchase annuities from here on but also to those who already have existing contracts. Asi I say, there were other questions we put to the government on a previous occasion. I had hoped they might be answered now, but in view of the situation we will ask our questions in the committee on industrial relations. In that committee I hope .that we shall be able to discuss that other all-important question, namely that of getting the cost of annuities down at least to the level that obtained prior to April, 1948.


Paul-Émile Côté: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: If the parliamentary assistant speaks now, he will close the debate.


Paul-Émile Côté: -before~he debate terminates on this point, I should like to remind my hon. friend that when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) introduced the

resolution he spoke more extensively than he might have, had he chosen to do otherwise. In introducing a resolution it is customary to set forth the broad features of the changes which are anticipated in ithe forecast legislation. But when the minister spoke in introducing the legislation on November 8 he made an extensive review of the administration of the act since its inception, and he took some time in making known the broad features of the amendments which were being announced by this resolution. The speech by the Minister of Labour at that time was one that could have been reserved for the house on the second reading of the bill. That is one of the reasons I chose to be brief at this stage.
Before taking my seat I wish to give a preliminary answer to the question the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has chosen from the several which he asked the other day. It was: Can a contract which is actually in force be amended to take advantage of the added privileges to which a purchaser will be entitled from the moment this legislation is passed? I may say to him that, as I intimated the other day, any contract in force can be improved to the limit of the possibilities set out in the contract itself at the rate prevailing under the said contract. That is the reason, in reply to a question put to me the other day by an hon. member, I said that a contract actually in force for less than the maximum amount could be increased to $1,200 if $1,200 was the maximum annuity payable under that contract, that it could be increased to $5,000 if it was one of the contracts which were issued at the time when the maximum annuity payable was $5,000 and so on. But if a purchaser wishes to increase his maximum annuity under an existing contract to an amount over the maximum payable under his contract, so as to reach the new maximum of $2,400, he will have to be satisfied with the existing rates of interest and mortality tables. That is what I had in mmd the other day when I replied to a question asked by one of the hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words he takes out a second or supplementary contract. Is that what the hon. member means?


Paul-Émile Côté: I would not say what interpretation the minister will place on the powers of discretion which are being given him, to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago. The minister has power to recommend the amendment of an existing contract or the substitution of a new one The powers are there. I think that all that is required to meet the wish of the prospective purchaser my hon. friend has in mind is in the amendment recommended to the house.
Financial Administration Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on industrial relations.



FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
max u is expedient to introduce a measure to consolidate and revise the Department of Finance and Treasury Board Act and the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, and certain other *	t0. Provlde for the organization and functions
of the treasury board and the Department of Finance, and the appointment and functions of the comptroller of the treasury, to regulate the collection, management and disbursement of public money, public borrowing, the management of the public debt, and the acquisition, recording and issue of public stores; to provide for the keeping of adequate public accounts, the audit thereof and the appointment, salary and functions of the Auditor General of Canada; to provide for the control of the financial affairs of crown corporations; to regulate the terms and conditions upon which contracts may be made on behalf of His Majesty; to provide a procedure for the write-off of debts owing to His Majesty that have become uncollectible- and to ?!!!* f,°r „the management of the consolidated mcnts therefrom	the maldng °f Certain Pa^
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe that when this matter was under discussion on Friday last I moved the adjournment of the debate, for there are a few comments I should like to make.

i. wc welcome tne introduction of this measure. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) indicated last June and as his parliamentary assistant indicated on Friday, we feel that the business of government, particularly in a financial way, has increased so tremendously in recent years that it has become necessary to review our legislation respecting financial matters and put all of it in one statute if that can be done. As was pointed out the other day, this bill was placed in our hands through the medium of being given first reading on June 25; hence we have had a few months in which to look it over.
I agree with the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary assistant in their statement that the various officials of the Department of Finance, the Auditor General and others who worked on this matter have done a good job.
I understand that this bill is to go to the committee on public accounts. I may say that this is another instance in which one

Financial Administration wonders how still another committee is going to function during the course of this session. So many of them are already meeting-and just a few minutes ago we passed a motion that calls another to life-that I wonder when the committee on public accounts is going to get either the time or the staff to do this heavy, detailed and technical job. Nevertheless it is one that must be done, and I hope the committee can at least get started *on it at this session.
When the Minister of Finance first introduced this measure last June 25, I felt that he was assessing the situation accurately when, as reported at page 4622 of Hansard of June 25, 1951, he spoke of the increased magnitude of government business and said:
Inevitably, in an enterprise of any magnitude, this involves some delegation of authority. However, the government's financial business must be carried on with full regard to the traditional relationships which exist under our parliamentary system of government between the legislature and the executive.
And he went on to say:
With the substantial increase in the amount of public business which comes before it, parliament can no longer deal, as it once did, with the details of administration. However, the government is the executant of the will of parliament, and must look there for its authority, and a broad measure of control and accountability is both necessary and proper.
I agree with those sentiments as expressed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). There is no question but that the increasing magnitude of the business of government makes it impossible for members of parliament, in parliament assembled at any rate, to go into all the details in the manner that was characteristic of the parliament of Canada seventy-five or eighty years ago when relatively small amounts of money were being spent. That does mean we have to have machinery for the delegation of authority; but the more that becomes necessary, the more important it is that that machinery, and particularly the statutory provisions, is such as to retain the accountability of the government to parliament and the authority of parliament over the government, particularly with respect to the spending of money.
I should like to read one or two further sentences from what the minister said on that occasion. On the same page he said:
When authority has been granted to the executive a full measure of accountability has been assured.
This is the minister's characterization of the bill. I trust that will prove to be the case. He continues:
In short, the aim has been, by the proper delegation of authority, to achieve business efficiency in operations with full regard for the fundamental concepts of parliamentary sovereignty and executive responsibility.

As I have already said, I agree wholeheartedly with those precepts, and I trust that when the committee gets this bill and goes through it, clause by clause and line by line, they will keep those precepts in mind and make sure that this bill setting up anew our financial machinery, while it delegates authority to the executive, retains parliamentary control over that executive.
Even after that has been done, Mr. Speaker, even after the best possible bill has been drafted and reviewed and, perchance, revised and amended by a committee, it is still to be said that the control by parliament over the government, the responsibility of the government to parliament requires even something more than statutory provisions. It requires vigilance on the part of parliament. It means that members of parliament will have to work even harder at their job, after a measure like this goes through. It is our task to scrutinize wherever we possibly can. But it also means that the government will have to be most vigilant in recognizing its accountability to parliament; and it should keep that precept in mind at every stage, particularly with respect to any measures involving the expenditure of money.
I was interested the other day in the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), when he took up the whole question of governmental economy. We in this group feel that is something that must be watched, and that there must be every possible check against waste or extravagance in government expenditures. I confess we have not had a great deal to say on that subject, but when we see evidence of extravagance we strongly object. Our main concern has been rather with government policy in the financial field. We feel that the government should take the kind of steps financially which will facilitate the full functioning of our economy so that Canadians, and Canada as a whole, do not have to live in a penurious manner, but rather in keeping with the productive capacity that we possess.
I have just said that nevertheless we do feel that some very close and strict attention must be paid both by parliament as a whole and by the government to matters affecting economy. In this connection the parliamentary assistant will recall that last June I drew to his attention a system in vogue in the United States whereby government employees are encouraged to make suggestions to the various departments in which they are employed. I have in mind suggestions that result in economies or improvements in efficiency. I pointed out to the parliamentary assistant that certain awards are made to



19SI

[Stage Direction]
civil servants in the employ of the federal government of the United States for suggestions that save the treasury money. The parliamentary assistant pointed out to me that in the bill based upon this resolution there is a provision permitting the governor in council to set up such a system in this country. I was glad to hear that. I hope the matter will be looked at closely by the public accounts committee when it gets the bill, and that we may have more information as to what is in the government's mind in that respect when the bill comes back to the committee of the whole house. I understand the provision is to be permissive in character. I would hope that it might not be just one of those permissions that are never used. Indeed I would hope the fact that the section is in the bill means that the government takes seriously the proposal that a suggestion system like that might be put to work.
On one other matter which I have raised on previous occasions I had something to say when this question was under discussion on June 25. I drew attention to the fact that the Auditor General has from time to time made quite a number of suggestions as to improvements or changes that might be made in our financial administration. The Minister of Finance said the Auditor General had played a considerable part in the drafting of this new legislation, and had been most helpful to the officials of the Department of Finance. He said, too, that many of the suggestions made from time to time by the Auditor General had been taken into consideration, and that some of them were reflected in this new bill. There is one suggestion the Auditor General has made from time to time which I drew to the attention of the Minister of Finance again on June 25. The minister suggested that it was not the kind of thing that could be included in a bill of this nature. I refer to the Auditor General's comment on the rather large number of items in the estimates from year to year which are really "vote texts that legislate". In a memorandum he presented to the other place a year and a half ago, and later to the committee on public accounts of this house, the Auditor General listed some twenty-one items in the estimates of 1950 which came under that category. And while he admitted that they could not be characterized as illegal, still he expressed some doubt as to the practice.
It was his view that the putting of such items in the estimates should be resorted to only in emergency cases, and when it was intended to have them there for only a year or two.
In other words, he objects to the idea of there being an item in the estimates year
Financial Administration after year for the same amount and the same purpose when it could be taken care of by a statute or by amending an existing statute. For example, a number of salaries are fixed by statute, but at some time or another the government has decided that those particular salaries should be increased. Instead of increasing a particular salary by amending the appropriate statute, the statute has been left as it is and a supplementary item has been placed in the estimates and left there year after year. For instance, the members of the civil service commission were included in the group, and there are others in the list submitted by the Auditor General. I am not sure whether there have been amendments to the Civil Service Act in the meantime to take care of that case; that may have been done, for I know that two or three of the items in the list submitted by the Auditor General have been taken care of and are now included in the regular statutes where they belong. But there are still quite a number of these items in the estimates of the current fiscal year which should not be there at all, but should! be subject to regular legislation.
As a matter of fact some of these items affect the running of the House of Commons. There is the covering item to provide full indemnity for hon. members who are away part of the year because of illness, and there is the item to provide for the extra indemnity of parliamentary assistants, and things like that. They are still in the estimates. There has never been a statute to regularize on a permanent basis the payment of those particular items. This is a practice which the Auditor General does not like.
I accept the view of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) that this is not the kind of thing that can be covered in this bill, but the minister admitted that it was related to the whole subject and it would be in order to discuss it in the public accounts committee when the bill goes there. I want to say at once I recognize that there are a number of things like this which have required tidying up and which have received the attention of the government during the last couple of years. I remember in particular on one occasion', I believe in relation to this very matter or one similar to it, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that it was the intention of the government to tidy up measures of this kind).
I submit that this is the occasion when that sort of tidying up should) be proceeded with. In laying this measure before us the Minister of Finance said it is extremely important that the relationship between the executive and: parliament be on the proper, traditional,
[Stage Direction]
Financial Administration historical basis; that it was extremely important that the government's accountability to parliament and parliament's authority over the government should be fully recognized. As I have said already, that is a matter not only of statutory provision, it is a matter of good faith and practice on the part of the government. I would feel much happier if along with this bill the government would indicate that they intend to go ahead and straighten out a number of these other matters, such as the ones to which I have drawn attention. In fact I would hope that the public accounts committee would consider not only the bill that will be referred to it but the memorandum which the Auditor General presented first to the Senate and then to our committee at the last session. I should like the committee to take that memorandum suggestion by suggestion and endeavour to get from the government an assurance that those suggestions which have not been implemented as yet will be implemented at the earliest possible date.
John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make several comments on the resolution now before us. This measure gives us the impression that it is the intention of the government more or less to consolidate and streamline all the financial activities of the government. This proposal I notice concerns the "functions" of the Department of Finance and the treasury board, and the bringing into order of the whole set of measures under which we are operating financially. If I correctly interpret it, that is the purpose of the resolution.
Since this altogether laudable attempt on the part of the Department of Finance is now being made I think it is fitting to discuss in a broad way some of the general aspects of financing in the modern state. First of all, a word about the functions of a department of finance. What are the functions of a department of finance? What have we the right to expect from the finance department in any nation? I suggest that there are or should be three main functions of a department of finance. The developments that have taken place in the modern world demand these three functions.
The first function is to raise money and provide for the spending of money. That has been recognized for generations as the prime function of the Department of Finance.
The second function is to provide for financing adequate production in the state. For a long time production was allowed to be taken care of more or less by the haphazard methods which resulted from the inclinations of various entrepreneurs who wanted to go into production in order to make a living. The
[Mr. Knowles.l
demands of our modern society are making it abundantly clear to all thinkers in respect to this matter that we can no longer permit production to be taken care of merely by haphazard forces. There will have to be some sort of organization to make sure that we have adequate production.
We have recognized in a general way the responsibility of the Department of Finance for production by passing the Bank Act and the Bank of Canada Act, and have done various other things which indicate we recognize that responsibility of our finance department in an informal way.
The third function of the Department of Finance is that of financing consumption adequately. This in my judgment has not been recognized up to the present time, but it must be recognized as a function more and more in the years to come if disaster is to be avoided.
May I restate these three functions of the Department of Finance. Whether or not we recognize it, without any question the Department of Finance has the responsibility for three main functions; first, the raising and spending of money; second, the financing of production; and third, the financing of consumption. I submit to the minister and the house that these three functions must be recognized and adequate provision must be made to see that each of them is adequately discharged constantly in our country and ultimately in the world. If we fail to do that we are going to have unmeasured and incalculable trouble.
Let me say a word or two about these three functions, first as to the funotion of finding money and spending it. Up to the present time it has been assumed that we would find enough money by various kinds of taxation, and when we have found ourselves in a difficulty where we could not readily raise the money we needed we have resorted to borrowing, all of which of course is familiar to everybody. I have said several times on the floor of this house that in raising money we have neglected one of the major potential sources of money, namely the creation of money debt-free by the state to represent our surplus production. If the Department of Finance is going to adequately discharge the function of raising money, I submit that it simply must take cognizance of the fact that there is a considerable potential source of money in the creation of money debt-free by the state to represent surplus production in the developing state. If this truth is not recognized then we will head straight into trouble faster and faster as time goes on.
I have quoted an eminent authority several times on the floor of the house. I do not

propose to quote his whole statement tonight, but I wish to submit to the minister that he must not overlook this opinion. I refer to a statement by Right Hon. Reginald McKenna, chairman of the Midland Bank of England, when he was submitting his report to the shareholders of his bank on January 30, 1936. He said:
Additional currency, however, can now be furnished by the authorities, if they choose to exercise their powers without reference to the Central Bank's holding of gold.
In the interests of brevity I do not propose to read the remainder of the passage, but I urge on the minister once more that regardless of the orthodox teaching he has had, and that the people of his department have had, they must not disregard the pronouncement of this great authority on banking. If they do, they do so at the risk of the wellbeing of the nation, and by "well-being" I mean a great number of things. For example, we feel now that we should pay our old age pensioners an additional pension. That is entirely right; but to suppose that we have to raise the money to pay those pensions entirely by taxation is utterly wrong. The result is that we have fastened the screws a little tighter on all the people who are struggling to make a go of things, and who after all are producing the goods and services which constitute our wealth. We have screwed down the pressure a little heavier or. them in order to redistribute the money to the old age pensioners, and by so doing we have done considerable harm to the motivation to produce in our country. I believe the minister recognizes that completely. That is all I wish to say about finding money for the present.
I wish to turn to the function of financing the producing of goods. Up to the present time we have allowed the production of goods, as I have said, to depend on the more or less hit or miss efforts of the people who wish to go into production as a business. We have allowed the financing of production to be taken care of primarily by the banks. The bankers were not in the business for the purpose of seeing that the country had adequate production. They were in the business, and still are, for the purpose of making money. The result is that regardless of how much Canada may need to have producers of wool or sheep, for example, the banker is not likely to lend money to prospective producers of sheep or wool unless he sees in the process a chance to make some money. Quite obviously the banker's interests and the nation's interests are not identical in such a case.
The nation wants to have sheep and wool produced to the extent that it is economically
94699-77i
Financial Administration desirable to have them produced in the country. The banker wants to make money. This fact is the potential cause of serious difficulty. We saw the result of it in the depression when the bankers wanted to lend but did not dare for fear they could not get their money back and could not make money. Regardless of how much production we may or may not have wanted at any given place, it was impossible to get loans from the banks to provide that production. Furthermore, the banks had to have what they call security. There were plenty of farmers, entrepreneurs and businessmen who because of the depression lost everything they had in the way of security. They were still just as capable as businessmen and producers, but they could not get the loans with which to produce. Obviously there was another bad result because of our policy of financing production mainly through private enterprise bankers working to make a profit rather than to produce the goods the nation desires to produce.
Up to the present time the government has made several moves altogether to its credit which have indicated a recognition on the part of the government that there is in our production mechanism a deficiency. For example there is an agency to finance industry in Canada under certain circumstances. It is called the industrial development bank. There are also four or five acts which are designed to enable the bankers, or if not the bankers then independent agencies organized by the state to finance production under certain circumstances. That kind of measure must be carried a good deal further if we are going to be able to finance production adequately in our nation and time.
I think that is about as much as I need to say in a general way on the question of production as a responsibility of the Department of Finance. I have merely pointed out that there are those two major deficiencies in our present producing system and that there is the more or less involuntary recognition on the part of the government that there is a deficiency, and it is the business of the Department of Finance to fill the gap and make up for the deficiency. In the United States the great measure which was adopted to fill this deficiency was that which set up the reconstruction finance corporation. That great corporation was the direct recognition on the part of the government of the United States that the bankers, the ordinary lenders, just simply were incapable of coping with the vicissitudes which resulted from depression and the uncertainties which have developed in our modern machine age times, resulting in depressions and serious dislocations. There has to be a measure or a set of measures that

Financial Administration will stabilize this matter of financing production, and regularize it to the benefit of the whole state.
I now turn to the third function. This function of financing consumption has not been recognized as yet by the orthodox economists, generally speaking. It has been assumed that consumption will be financed out of production. In other words, when the banker lent money to the sheep producer somehow or other it was assumed that he lent enough money to the sheep producer not only to produce the sheep but to consume them as well, the idea being that if you took all the loans that were advanced to all producers all over the nation these loans would be sufficient to finance not only the production but to enable the consumers through wages and salaries and so on to get enough money to be able to consume it. That assumption is a major fallacy. It may come to the minister as a shock, and it may not appeal to him as being sound from the standpoint of orthodox finance. It is not sound from the standpoint of orthodox finance, but this is one respect in which orthodox finance is itself unsound, just as we have already indicated certain deficiencies in our orthodox method of financing production.
Now, why is there need for financing consumption? This is the main reason: Years ago, people had to produce most things by hand, as for example in farming; you had to plow with a hand plow and drag the soil down with a rough harrow, which was a very hard thing to handle and very slow; and cut the sods with a disk and all that kind of thing. There was so much work involved in the production and so many people involved in the producing that somehow or other they got enough money to consume fairly successfully the relatively meagre results of the tremendous effort that people were making in the process of production all over the nation. It took a colossal amount of work to produce an acre of wheat when I was a boy fifty years ago. Today, as the minister knows, the production of an acre of wheat is just the simplest kind of thing, and requires very little manpower. One man with a tractor and power equipment can handle today a half section or three-quarters of a section of land with considerable ease, bringing into being the tremendous production which results from such a farm. But the wages that he will allow himself would not have the slightest chance in the world of consuming the wheat, or putting into circulation, into other people's hands, the money with which to consume the wheat. Therefore I say the rapid growth in our civilization during the last half century in the use of machines and solar energy-for example: producing goods with the energy
[Mr. Blackmore.l
out of gasoline, the use of solar energy, and the use of technological skills-has enabled us to produce things with few man hours that used to take a tremendous amount of work, and to produce them probably out of paper or wood, as we do for example in plastics. The use of these three means, machines, technological skills and solar energy, have enabled mankind to produce goods that people have not been able to buy because at the same time they produced the goods they did not put the money into circulation to enable the people to buy them. Therefore there has developed a definite shortage of purchasing power under normal conditions. It was that lack of purchasing power which played a considerable part in the depression.
People say: Why, my old dad did not have all these helps, this, that and the other thing. He did not have any old age pension. He went into the woods and he carved out his home, and I do not know what he did not do. Yes, he lived in a different age. When "my old dad" got old he started milking another cow and peddling the butter and cream around. Let them try to do that in the ordinary town today. "My mother" used to take in socks and darn them. Let them try to do that today in an ordinary community. They used to keep hogs, and raise their meat. Let them try to do that in an ordinary community today.
Conditions have completely changed, largely because of these three great developments that I have indicated; machines, technological skills and solar energy. This has brought about demands for social services of all kinds, and many other demands which we think are indications of decay in our people. They are not indications of decay in our people but indications of change in our economic system. The result of it all is that the need for financing consumption has developed very rapidly without governments recognizing it.
What I suggest to the minister earnestly is this: I suggest that he do not reject this suggestion, but that he give it the most careful consideration and cause the Department of Finance to give it careful consideration. Do not disregard these suggestions which come from those who have given this problem special study.
May I go on with that aspect of the question just a little further. The minister's department will ask: How can you finance consumption? Well, today the government is trying to finance consumption as far as it does try by taking the money with which to finance it away from the people who had it. This has resulted in the tremendous burden of taxation which we now suffer from. Had the government recognized the validity of the proposal

to create money debt-free based upon the production of the country, then much of this taxation would not have been necessary. The government would have been able to obtain the funds with which to finance the consumption that was desirable. The secret of scientific, modern financing of consumption is the creation and use of debt-free money based upon the surplus goods which we are able to produce by the machines, technological skills and the use of solar energy which God has enabled us to enter into on such a large scale in our day.
I am sure that in the changes which the minister proposes here now there is not at the basis the fundamental thorough-going across-the-board recognition of these three great functions of the Department of Finance. I suggest that within the next year, if possible, the whole financial structure of the nation be reviewed, studied and planned with these three great principles in mind. I promise the minister that the happiness which will result from the drafting of a new system based on the recognition of these three basic functions will be such as to gladden him beyond what he could conceive he could ever experience. It has to come.
To show the soundness of what I am proposing I should like to read four quotations from the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada, published in 1933, to indicate that when I suggest debt-free money I am not suggesting anything new, revolutionary and unsound, but something which men recognized fifty years ago, but of which because of unhappy contriving we have lost the use and the recognition of the soundness in our day. Now on page 23 of this report of the banking and currency commission I read section 54:
It is of interest to note that during the crisis of 1907 the then minister of finance made arrangements to lend the banks some $10 million of dominion notes under similar conditions to those laid down in the Finance Act.
Those dominion notes were created debt-free by the dominion treasury in 1907, and $10 million of them were lent to the banks to save the banks from bankruptcy. The underlying principle was exactly the same as Britain applied in world war I when she created the Bradbury to save the banking structure of that country in the early days of the war.
The second passage I should like to read to the minister from this report is found on page 22, paragraph 48, which reads as follows:
On August 3 an order in council was passed providing, among other things, for advances to be made to the chartered banks and to the savings banks to which the Quebec Savings Banks Act applies in the form of dominion notes against
Financial Administration deposits made by the banks with the Minister of Finance of such securities as might be approved by the minister.
It is as obvious as can be when one reads that passage that all the banks had to do was turn into the federal treasury securities, bonds and instruments of that kind which were in their possession, received by them as security for their loans. The dominion treasury would take these securities and use them as backing for the new money the treasury created debt-free, then let the banks have that money. That is exactly the principle which underlay the Bradbury in Britain to which I have referred, and which is so well explained in the book "Currency, Credit and the Exchanges", by Sir William A. Shaw, published in 1926.
The third passage I should like to read from the report is on the same page, and in the same section. It reads:
At the session of parliament held in the month of August, 1914, the first Finance Act was passed: it confirmed the issue of notes made under the provisions of this order in council and provided for authorization by proclamation of similar advances in case of war, invasion, riot or insurrection, real or apprehended, and in case of any real or apprehended financial crisis.
We are not far from a real or apprehended financial crisis today, even if we have such a large surplus.
May I read as the fourth example of the use 'of this power, a quotation from the same page of the report, section 51?
But extensive use continued to be made of the power to issue dominion notes to the banks against approved securities with the result that it was decided in 1923 to make this part of the Finance Act mechanism a feature of the normal Canadian financial system.
May I break in to suggest to the minister that this act he is proposing will not be complete until that provision is included. I continue the quotation:
In introducing the new legislation, Mr. Fielding, the Minister of Finance, made the following brief explanation of its purpose:
"The act (Finance Act) was adopted as a war measure, and no doubt was exceedingly useful in the financial operations during the war. It may be said the war being over we no longer have any need for the act, but experience has shown that the act is still required; indeed, I am inclined to think that something of the kind will have to become almost a permanent part of our financial system."
May I add to that, without undue presumption, that I suggest "something of the kind" must be a permanent part of our financial system today, notwithstanding the fact that we foolishly passed the Bank of Canada Act removing the power from the finance minister and locking it up in the Bank 'of Canada where he cannot use it. Notwithstanding that, this parliament must insist that the
1222	HOUSE OF
Financial Administration authority to create money, under the circumstances necessary, shall be restored to the Minister of Finance, and shall be exercised wherever it is deemed proper, necessary and safe.
So much having been said of the three general principles which I believe should be recognized as functions 'of the Department of Finance, I feel I should go on to make one or two other points. I have stated that a shortage of purchasing power is developing within the country. Let me point out one more difficulty, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, that lies at the basis of the desperate trouble we are in right now internationally.


Mr. Stick:: Usury.


John Horne Blackmore: Not only usury; it is the inability to distribute goods and services among the nations. The report of the FAO director, Norris Dodd, which was issued recently from Rome, contains a grave statement to the effect that the increases in production in the world are taking place mainly in the nations that already have more than they need, and not in the nations that need extra production. This is a matter of colossal importance. Why is that? I should not like to say this is wholly characteristic of our times, but the reason is that when these goods are produced in these countries that already have more than they need, the nations which have not the goods they need cannot buy them no matter how they try because, in the main, those countries that are producing more than they need do not want any of the goods the other people can produce. The result is a developing situation fraught with the gravest fundamental dan-

gers to the whole structure of civilization. It is a matter that simply must be taken care of.
The question will be asked, how can we take care of it? I feel that it would not be well to launch into that matter tonight, but I just point this out, that the problem has to be taken care of by debt-free money, or at least government-created interest-free money. Since before world war I I believe nearly everybody has felt there ought to be an international bank. What they have had in mind is that there should be some international authority that could create money. They have felt that if we had an international finance department that could create money through its finance minister to represent the unconsumed goods that are being produced in the world, then it would be possible to distribute the goods by granting money to the "have not" people so they could buy goods from the "have" people. It is unorthodox and it is new, but it offers a possible suggestion. I submit, Mr. Speaker, there is no possible solution that has yet been offered by man other than through government-created interest-free money.
May I adjourn the debate, and I shall endeavour to say a word or two more about this when we resume.
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we shall
resume the debate on the address.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, November 21, 1951